Skip to main content

tv   Public Affairs  CSPAN  February 21, 2013 1:00pm-5:00pm EST

1:00 pm
a gun-free zone in the district of columbia for years, and that did not do them much good. they had one of the highest murder rates of any jurisdiction certainly in the country and pretty much in the world. it's gone down now since the gun ban has ended. it's still above the national average, probably about twice. interestingly, out in fairfax county, where i'm sitting right now at the blue ridge arsenal in chantilly, the murder rate is .3 per 100,000. it's about 30 times that in the district of columbia. murder rate here in fairfax county where, as you can see from the gun store that you're looking at during this show, guns are readily available here in fairfax county. we have a lower murder rate than in the country of the united kingdom where almost all guns are banned.
1:01 pm
so clearly the idea that we're going to make ourselves better off by getting rid of guns doesn't work, as a number of callers already pointed out. criminals don't obey the law. that's sort of the way criminals are. and they will get guns and the question is, are we going to make it easy or hard for the good guys to be able to defend ourselves? host: and as mr. pratt mentioned, he's joining us from blue ridge arsenal from chantilly, virginia. and pedro is out there as well. >> we are joibd again by mark warner. how many stalls do you have here? >> 20 lanes total. >> tell us about the range, what's it made of and how is it assigned to safety? >> with our rifles, handguns, shotguns. our backstop is steel. at about 40-degree angle. it slows down. so it -- flashback or
1:02 pm
ricochets. >> in this section you can fire -- >> handguns, rifles and shotguns. and on the other side? >> handguns only. >> we will start with -- >> glock 17. >> go ahead and load it up, get ready and hand it off to me and fire it and see what happens. >> ok. >> so as he does that, just to let you know, he's getting the protective gear on. it's a must when you do these type of things. the weapons are ready. let's give it a shot. >> nice and firm. look through your sights. >> ok. >> ready. pull the trigger. [gunshots] >> all right.
1:03 pm
>> now, that is the -- now, how many -- how many bullets in that magazine? >> 10 pounds. >> that took about 20, 30 seconds to empty. >> and probably 12 seconds if you were better. >> good shot, too. >> load up the rifle. again, same thing. he'll get it primed and ready to go, hand it off to me and i'll shoot it and i'll hand it back to them. regulations. >> safety is on. >> safety is on. so i'll go for it. >> ok. put your thumb up in here. >> safety off. switch it down, correct? >> yes. all right. look through here. front sight, rear sight, target and you're ready. >> ok. [gunshots]
1:04 pm
le >> safety on. >> safety is on. >> yeah. >> hand it back to you. one thing you don't get is the recoil of the kick on the shoulder. >> small round. it's very light, actually. >> when you say it's a small round, that means if it's a larger round -- >> that was a .223. very small bullet. a lot less recoil. >> during the course of the morning we'll learn more about ammunition. another part, mark warner, thank you again. >> you're welcome. host: and as we continue our live program from blue ridge arsenal, that was pedro shooting the gun. i wish they had brought the target in so we could see his
1:05 pm
results a little bit. larry pratt is still with us out there at blue ridge as well. paul in middlefield, ohio, democrats' line, please go ahead with your question for larry pratt, gun owners of america. caller: thank you for taking your gun. when i purchased my most recent firearm, everything went smoothly. background check went ok. the guy asked me, do you even lift? i said, you are one cheeky cut, mate. i swear. host: dennis, you're on the air. caller: good morning, gentlemen. thank you for having this on tv. i am a gun owner. proud gun owner. i served in the military during vietnam and i believe everyone should carry a gun. more guns in this country, the safer we would be. the manufacture deems that guns have 18-round magazine and 30-round magazine. that's what the private person
1:06 pm
should carry. we in massachusetts has a governor that wants us to have five rounds. we cannot protect ourselves. the police department cannot be here when i need them. i was attacked in my front and it took the police eight minutes after the fact. we need to protect ourselves. thank you very much. keep up the work, mr. pratt. host: dennis, what kind of firearms or weapons do you own? caller: i have -- i have three ar-15's. i have four handguns and shotguns. i am a three-gun competition shooter. i shoot about 6,000 rounds a year. host: what's your hobby cost? caller: excuse me? host: what does your hobby cost you a year? caller: i do all my own loads myself. i probably spend about $1,000 in gunpowder and primers and stuff like that. but other than that, i do my own reloads. pick up the blasts at the range, clean it and remanufacture it myself.
1:07 pm
host: thank you for calling in. out at blue ridge, pedro is going to show us his target. let's look at that target, pedro. let's see how well you did. >> so here's the target. here is the shots from the glock .9 millimeter. here is the shots from the rifle. the reason -- i'm left eye dominant. so he says with -- i might become better at it. that's a look at the target, what they brought in. that's what happened. host: and back to your calls. cannon core oweno, california, please ask your question for larry pratt, gun owners of america. caller: i own a security guard firm here in california, also in the state of louisiana. here in california it's a huge problem with the ban on where
1:08 pm
you -- the gun-free zones. in los angeles, east los angeles area, there's a high school named locke high school. locke high school has armed security guards. i was one of them. i was part time doing all the special events, all the events they have at that school. they got gangs all around that area, all around that area and so all the crime is coming from there and it's in a school zone. locke high school is owned by a charter school system called green dart schools. are you familiar with that, sir? host: ken, where are you going with all this? caller: well, the question is. they enforce all these laws but we as armed security guards have been in gunfire area for a long time. i mean, we are under fire all the time with small calibers. we're carrying 10 rounds.
1:09 pm
that's all we're allowed to carry in california. we under fire, even the sheriff's department is under fire and ungunned and unmanned. host: larry pratt. guest: it's an interesting comment that a professional security guard is outgunned in a school zone. that tells you how poor judgment, put it very mildly, many of our legislators when they tell us that nobody should have a gun at a school. well, that's just inviting the criminal to be the only one with a gun if he wants to engage in this criminal activity, whether it's mass murder or gang banger, such as the caller was describing. these gun control laws do not affect the behavior of criminals, and hopefully we're -- maybe we're coming to the point where we're beginning to see that and hopefully there's going to be a pushback. i think we're beginning to see
1:10 pm
that, and politicses are going to be hearing from people such as the caller that you guys got it wrong. we got to change these laws. we got to get rid of these bans because they only apply to us good guys. host: larry pratt, you're sitting at blue ridge arsenal out in chantilly. what kind of a process would a gunshop like that have to go through to get a federal license? guest: well, they would have to contact the -- a bureau in the justice department, apply for a license. they would have to be approved, background check by the federal government, pay fees and eventually they would be able to get their license and engage in retail sales. it's only with that license they would be able to buy product from manufacturers and distributors. host: should gun shows and federally licensed dealers be treated the same legislatively?
1:11 pm
guest: well, that's a question that is heading toward the background check, i think. and the background check is something that we know from studies that have been done and published in the anti-gun journal of the american medical association don't lower crime. they don't have any utility as a crime-fighting tool. and so we don't think that private sales should for a minute be subjected to the kind of background checks that already been shown to be few tile when required at -- futile when required at retail sales. host: is that the only difference legislatively between gun shows and licensed dealers? guest: well, at gun shows, most of the transactions actually are carried out by licensed dealers. there's only a small handful of sales that occur from people who perhaps have their own collection and are selling it
1:12 pm
off, or maybe they're trying to trade and complete a collection by getting a certain firearm that would round out their collection. those are the minority, strong minority of the transactions that occur at gun shows. most sales actually are conducted through licensed dealers. host: when we talked with allen a little earlier, he said if someone would come to buy five or more weapons, then the gunshop has to fill out a special form, is that correct? guest: actually, i think it's three. in any case, yes, there's a multiple sales requirement that a special report be sent to the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearm and explosives and what that means is that they will actually look at that transaction whereas they're not looking at other transactions. host: do you support the multiple sales, raising kind of
1:13 pm
a flag? guest: no. actually we don't. we don't think that the federal government has a legitimate role in this, and it's not been shown that any of this infringement has done anything to fight crime, and if anything, sometimes these approvals are delayed and delayed and delayed. my name may be similar to someone else's name and if the government does not give a clear go-ahead, a lot of stores, a lot of dealers for fear of the reprisals from the federal government, even though it's legal to go ahead and sell a gun where there was maybe -- my name was the same except for a middle initial or something like that of another person, they just won't go ahead and make that sale. people are unnecessarily and improperly denied because of
1:14 pm
these inadequacies of the background check. so there are problems that people don't hear about, but which affect probably some 10% of the transactions. host: back to the "christian science monitor's" report on guns in america. gun deaths, rifles vs. handguns at the heart of the handgun movement is a revised assault weapons ban that would focus on militarized semiautomatic rifles like the ambs r-15, which has been used in several recent mass shootings and has been a symbolic america's gun culture. bill in boca raton, thanks for holding. calling in on our gun owners
1:15 pm
line. caller: it is interesting to listen to you talk. i am a gun owner, and more on the gun control side of things. i watched people like you all the time and infuriates me checking your veracity. you said three things that i understand to be wrong and i wonder what else is just isn't correct. you explained in the recent mass shootings that there was one exception to gun-free locations. your thesis is that we should have more gun available places that would stop this but that's clearly not true. the second thing is -- i don't know where you get your statistics about britain being the third most violent in the world but that is clearly wrong. maybe industrialized country?
1:16 pm
that's clearly wrong. and licensed gun owner -- gun shops, back ground checks having been ineffective, well, i'm not certain but i believe there have been a couple hundred thousand gun sales that have been prohibited over the years, over the last decades. host: what kind of gun do you own? caller: my point is out of those hundred thousand, there are is probably a few of those, at least one, that is effective. host: bill, what kind of gun do you own? caller: a glock. i can count the number of guns i own. mr. pratt doesn't know how many guns he owns. i mean, i can't -- i don't know that to be false. host: bill, why do you have a glock? caller: i enjoy, actually, target shooting. host: thank you for calling in this morning. mr. pratt, three points. number one, the gun-free locales. guest: well, the gun-free
1:17 pm
locale whether it's a matter of fact, whether it's virginia tech, the aurora theater, newtown, they were gun-free zones. they were posted as such and in many cases the law itself allowed the theater to post no guns or the school was required by state and federal law to be a gun-free zone. whereas i said earlier, here in fairfax county, virginia, where guns is readily available, as this gun store is evidence, and people can carry concealed firearms and the state of virginia makes it fairly easy to get a concealed carry permit. we have a murder rate that is lower than most countries in the world. england happens to be the fourth most violent country exceeded by el salvador and
1:18 pm
honduras and i forgot the other one that's more violent than england. so doing away with guns does not make a society civil or a pleasant place to live. host: and finally, licensing gun shops, ineffective the background checks? guest: well, we know from the study that was published in that journal of the american medical association that the background check before and after they were in effect did not contribute to lessening crime. and for "the jurm of the medical association -- "journal of the medical association," to their credit because they have a decidedly anti-second amendment editorial policy. the fact is what deterse crime is people who might be victims being armed. we have locales in this country where people can carry concealed firearms and readily so. those are areas where we tend to have our lower violent crime
1:19 pm
rates. whereas places like the district of columbia, where it's virtually impossible still to get a gun, there the violent crime rate is quite a bit higher than it is out here in gun-friendly fairfax county. host: dave in tallahassee, please go ahead with your question or comment for larry pratt? caller: thanks for c-span. good morning. i am a retired police officer. i was a police officer for 37 years. worked what people call the hood for like 20 years. i witnessed thousands of times where people with guns were able to defend themselves and thwart crimes and protect the people around them. i don't believe that the american citizen should ever be infringed upon. that's why they call us free. but the people who are out to
1:20 pm
remove guns are people who don't understand them, haven't witnessed real crime and i don't know. they just don't trust americans. host: mr. pratt. guest: that's a very good point. there's a lack of trust by those that typically are involved in trying to get rid of guns, at least out of the hands of the average citizen. they think that guns only belong in the hands of the government. well, the country was founded on a very different philosophy that guns belong in the hands of the average person. and when the british crown embargoed the importation of ammunition into the colonies, that was just one more evidence to the colonists that they were getting close to cutting the chord with mother britain. host: finally for you, mr.
1:21 pm
pratt, gary dan tweets in, will 3-d printers make gun laws obsolete? they are referring to an article in "the washington post," front-page article about people making guns or components of guns on their 3-d printers. guest: well, if you make a gun with a 3-d printer, from what i read, you might be able to fire it once. and then all you got is a mess of paper. possibly the 3-d printed magazine, the multiple-round magazine, might be more feasible, but i think that still remains to be seen. this is a new technology. it has soming from implications for the future of gun control, and if it does develop further from where it is now, it's probably going to mean gun control needs to be put into the trash can for real and for good. host: and we've been talking
1:22 pm
with larry pratt of gun owners of america for the past hour. thank you for being on "washington journal." >> coming up we'll go live to capitol hill for a meeting of the house democratic steering and policy committee. they're gathering this afternoon to discuss how the pending march 1 sequester will impact government employees. among those we'll hear from, former federal aviation administration administer, mary ann blakey, and former illinois congressman jon porter. that's live here at 2:30 on c-span. we were joined by a journalist who described her experience buying and licensing a gun in washington, d.c. from today's "washington journal." host: i don't know if you just heard that caller talking about women and guns. do you have a response for him? guest: well, i'll say i only shot a gun for the first time a year ago and this is my one-year anniversary of being a gun owner.
1:23 pm
i understand the first time at a range is scary. it's loud. i'm sitting at a range right now at blue ridge and it's loud. like any skill you learn, you train and be responsible and now i'm much better and very confident in having a loaded gun in my own. host: emily miller, what is "emily gets her gun"? guest: it was a series i did for "the washington times" when i decided to get my own gun for self-defense in washington, d.c. host: why did you get a gun? guest: i was a victim at a home invasion. i was dog sitting and taking the dog for a walk and not very frontly left the front door opened -- closed but unlocked and i came back and there was a man coming out of the house. and to make a long story short, he did not physically harm me, but he did steal my wallet, got away and i also not very smartly followed him down the street having watched too many
1:24 pm
episodes of "law and order" in my life thinking i was going to get a photo and when i turned the corner i found him about 15 other men in a pickup truck on a cul-de-sac. i knew i was in danger. i ran back in the house. the police said their biggest concern at that point, the bad guys, because i spooked them and come home early, had left the windows or door open somewhere they would come back that night. i was absolutely terrified sleeping in this house alone. all i had to do was barricade myself in the bedroom, literally put a dresser in front of the door. i thought there lying there, if i had a gun by the night table, at least if these crazy drug addicts, bad guys come back, i had a chance to defend myself against them. then i decided to get a gun and found out getting a gun in washington, d.c. is one of the hardest things you can do. i believe unconstitutional in the way they set up the registration requirements. host: what did it cost you, how long did it take, what were some of the biggest obstacles that you faced?
1:25 pm
guest: it took me from the time i started to the time i actually took possession of my sig four months and $435 in fees. that's not including the cost of the gun. so obviously it was prohibitively expensive for most folks in washington. it was expensive for me, i tell you. host: how much was the gun? guest: $780, i want to say. host: ok. guest: so it was quite an investment. the hardest part was there is this requirement at the time, gun safety class, which was five hours long, and you could not teach it in the city because it requires an hour at the range so you had to leave the city. there were really no restrictions. it was open ended on who could teach it, where they could teach it. it was all these men teaching it in these homes. it made me feel very unsafe. i couldn't find an instructor. in the end the city council, because of reading all this,
1:26 pm
exposing all this, the city made it virtually impossible for people to get guns in the city, the city council passed a law this year that took away that requirement, that five-hour class. and a couple other small requirements, but there's still 11 steps to gun ownership in washington which is only down from 17 when i did it. host: emily miller, who is charles sykes and what's his role in the gun-buying process in d.c.? guest: well, charles sykes is the one legal gun dealer in washington, d.c., and he's been doing it for years. he does not buy and sell. he has a very unique role which is transferring the guns, because federal law says you have to have a gun transferred to a federally licensed dealer in your state, and d.c. not a state, but same rules apply. so in order to have a handgun, you have to go through charles sykes. obviously if you're buying a new one. if you have one and in the city you don't need to use him. well, charles sykes got zoned
1:27 pm
out of his office a few years ago and had no place to go. the city residents didn't have a way to get legal handguns. and the threat was he could work out of the d.m.v. he has a gun dealer in the d.m.v. i went there i think three or four times total to have my gun transferred to him, fill out the paperwork. at that time we had to get a ballistics test from his office. he's the man to call if you want to get a gun in d.c. host: why did you choose to buy a sig? and what is a sig? host: a sig sauer is just a brand like glock, colt, remington. these are all just brands. i went to -- it's a little bit harder when you live in washington because there are no gun ranges and i think most people when they decide what gun to buy, they spend a lot of time trying different guns. you can rent them at gun stores like here at whether you ridge arsenal you can rent them and try them out at the range
1:28 pm
behind me so you can get a sense how it feels. i did it one time because there's no -- there's one convenient gun range and it's sharpshooters in virginia. so i narrowed it down to five. i knew i wanted a full-sized gun because there are no carry rights in d.c. so i couldn't take the gun out of my house. i narrowed it down to a full size of five. we put a poll in "the washington times" and people voted and they voted a sig sauer. because i did care about the looks of it, i got the stainless steel two tone so it looks pretty cool too. host: we have a tweet from sasha which says, how often have you practiced within the year? guest: i go every once a month or two to go to the range and training with my gun. host: what are the restrictions in washington, d.c. in terms of taking your gun out of your house? guest: well, washington, d.c., is the last place in the
1:29 pm
country where it is illegal to bear arms. that half of the second amendment is not recognized in our nation's capital. in december, the seventh circuit court of appeals overturned illinois state law which had that same provision that you couldn't leave your house with your gun. and so their state legislature has 180 days to rewrite that law in order to have people bear arms. so now it is -- remains that d.c. is the only place in the country where you can't take your gun out of your home. as a result, the only people who have gun yous only the streets of washington are the bad guys and that's why assaults with guns were up 20% last year in washington, d.c. violent crime is up -- i think it was up 3% to 6%, and the total by the end of the year, i am not exactly sure because the police took down their crime statistics website as i started reported on gun violence going up while it's going down in the rest of the country, but it's the last place and it's what has to be overturned by the court eventually because it is
1:30 pm
not safe nor is it constitutional to have the bad guys the only ones with the guns and have all the law-abiding people sitting ducks. carry laws are a great deterrent to crime because the bad guys know there is a chance you're going to shoot back. they're probably not going to target you. that's why, as larry pratt said earlier, violent crime one mile away across the bridge in virginia is so much lower because the bad guys know if they want your iphone in d.c., very little chance you are going to have a gun to be able to shoot back when they grab you and want your phone. in virginia, there's that question mark. host: emily miller, as a reporter, how long have you investigated buying an illegal weapon in d.c. and how long that would take you? host: i wanted to do that so badly -- guest: i wanted to do that so badly but we haven't found a way, even the smartest investigative minds at the paper, that would not -- have
1:31 pm
not found a way to do it safe. guns are being stolen. they are bought off the streets. there's plenty of guns being bought and sold in this city. it's just not the law-abiding people. host: "emily gets her gun" is the story in "the washington times." you type in her name and this blog will come up. it goes over the course of six or seven months or so. you can see it right there on your screen. she joins us from blue ridge arsenal in chantilly, virginia. you're hearing some noise in the background. the range is open. the store is open. that's what you're hearing from the background. david in shall mar, florida, you have been patient. please go ahead with your question or comment for emily miller. caller: basically, what's kind of odd here is i'm a convicted
1:32 pm
fellen and i -- felon and i own three guns. i have been a convicted fullon since 1998. i purchased these guns back in 2010. the laws -- i'm all for some laws. firearms for people that try to protect their family like me, my guns stay at home. i am not out wanting to hurt nobody. they're for protection. i know a lot of criminals. i've been to prison. and when they come into someone's home, they are going to do what they got to do to get what they want. they're not going to care. oh, well this person's got this or got that. you know, they're going to come in fully loaded, armed, ready to get the job done. i feel like everybody has the right to protect their home under any and all circumstances. host: hey, david, could we ask you a couple quick questions? what kind of felony was it? what was the felony charge? guest: i have a bunch of some
1:33 pm
minor theft felonies, -- caller: i have a bunch of some minor theft felonies. bodily harm. i am considered a violent felon. that was when i was young and wild and out of control. host: did you buy your gun from a gunshop? caller: no. host: illegally? caller: yes. i would have done that. and the police would know, hey, this guy has such and such gun. so if i ever did commit such a crime, show me that gun for ballistics. and if i can't produce that gun, that's more circumstancal evidence that they would have against me. basically i got my guns for protection. it took me four days from the time i met someone here in florida to go out into mexico, bring the firearms from mexico into texas and i purchased them
1:34 pm
there. host: david in shall mar, florida, thanks for sharing your fory. emily miller. host: i'm a little taken aback by that caller. you know, we have a -- the society agreed on some limits to the second amendment. we all agree that convicted felons should not be possessing or owning guns. it's very hard to stop the stolen guns. we agree that people who are mentally ill should not have guns. people who have -- are assaulting or restraining order should not have guns. those are agreed upon and i think that's part of public safety. it's -- this caller more than anything illuminates what is going on. you know, the president is calling for this universal background check. and the criminals -- and no offense to the caller, because he said it was in his past and he's living a law-abiding life, however, most of these active criminals are just going to buy their guns however they can illegally. all the checks and all the laws
1:35 pm
in the world do nothing to stop them. and it's been proven over and over in government studies that there are no gun control laws that have ever proven to reduce crime. extensive study by the c.d.c. for two years looked at the state and local level and said there will be nothing to reduce crime. i think that caller illuminate those who have already decided should not own firearms are getting them anyway. host: pedro echevarria is out at blue ridge arsenal. good morning, pedro. >> so we've been talking about background checks morning. mark warner, it starts with a form. what's this form we're looking at? >> here we have a state form. a buyer is required to provide two documentations. one the driver's license and second form of i.d. this is the state form. the federal form. on the federal form, especially where the firearm is going in,
1:36 pm
as far as make, model, serial number. we go to the police computer. >> before we go to the computer, some of the questions asked -- are you a fugitive from justice? are you a user or addicted to marijuana. have you been adjudicated, mentally defective? talk about that line. >> people are required to answer truthfully. if they answer falsely, we don't know. there's not a link between this and the police background check. if they have been they could put no and we would never know if. >> so that line itself is based on the honor system? >> correct. they all are. >> they all are. can some of this information be checked though? >> if you check yes or check no and you are it will come up in your background check. the mental health one doesn't show up. >> so if you are a person that fills out this form, the state and the federal, then take us to the computer. >> from there the state website, put all the information in to the computer
1:37 pm
based on information off their form. we hit submit. and generally within 15 to 25 seconds we'll get an approval or a delay back from state police. delay could be anything from having a common name to maybe having government clearances or having a bad background check. but no one knows until the police does their investigation into it. >> so the average time to find out if you're eligible, 30 seconds? >> yes. >> is that standard or what's the longest period? >> three months. >> three months. >> a gentleman who had issues in his past and took a little while from north dakota and virginia to get this clarified. had he done this is a eight minutes. >> is there a website federally that this gets attached to as well? >> i'm not sure. this is done state, locally. i am concerned with the virginia background checks. >> tell me the number of
1:38 pm
background checks you do here at the blue ridge arsenal? >> past several months, we're averaging 10 to 15 on certain days. weekends we're averaging a little bit more. again, earlier, people are beginning to buy guns more because they're concerned what's going on. we're doing a lot more checks. >> if a person gets rejected or bounced back, can he apply again? >> i know people who have been denied. they're given information to contact police to inquire as to why they were denied. some things can be easily -- variables and they made a mistake and they were approved after the fact. but each person is allowed to inquire on their own account as to why they were denied. >> and is there a cost for a background check? >> yes. $2. >> $2? >> yes, per check. >> this is mark warner, walked us through the basics of the background check. mark warner, thank you. >> thank you. host: hey, pedro, can you ask mr. warner, have they ever refused to sell somebody a gun even though they passed a
1:39 pm
background check? >> host wants to know if the arsenal or you ever refused to sell somebody a gun even if they passed a background check? >> well, i've had someone -- actually i have. i had someone who was delayed. upon talking to her about why she was delayed, she made me feel very uncomfortable. she made comments about her past life and having issues with mental health, as a matter of fact, and based upon that i decided to go ahead and refuse the sale even though she was delayed, i chose to refuse it because she told me after the fact she had some issues. i wasn't going to do it. >> and any of you on the staff can make that call? >> yes. >> back to you, peter. host: and emily miller of "the washington times" is also at blue ridge arsenal joining us. emily miller, one tweets in to you.
1:40 pm
host: are women owners, how common is it to be a woman and a gun owner? guest: well, it's the highest ever right now. gun ownership of women. and i think that's because women understand that, you know, 911 is a little bit far away. you know, it's almost becoming cool now. you see these groupon offers or living social offers for gun, you know, classes and training sessions and i'll just say anecdotally, since i got a gun last year, a lot of my girlfriends said they want a gun, go to the shooting range. i taught a lot of friends to shoot for the first time. several are thinking of getting guns for their own self-defense. i think society has changed for gun ownership and you're seeing ownership on the rise because it's ok for women to own guns. it's not just a man's world. i will say also that laser she mentioned, i have not used one
1:41 pm
before. my friend used a laser. and the aim is better using the laser grips. host: a recent poll on february 1. this is from gallup. host: jim in tennessee. please go ahead with your question or comment for emily miller. caller: comment, the way i see it, every american does have a right to own a firearm. i can see using a shotgun and regular rifles, but the semiautomatics and fully automatics that everybody wants so badly, they're not -- i was a four-year marine. how many of your average citizens really need an s.k. or an a.k.?
1:42 pm
marine corps teaches you, the one shot, one kill. home protection, i'd love to have a shotgun because the boom will move someone out of your house. you don't need to kill the individual. you need to protect your house and your family. host: emily miller. caller: there are several issues for that caller. semiautomatic has been regulated. they are not used in crimes. it's not an issue. those people who aren't gun experts or don't know understand the basics of how firearms work, automatic guns are the ones they use in war for suppression. which is you pull the trigger and it just fires until you take your finger off the trigger. all the guns in america except revolvers -- modern firearms are semiautomatic which means you pull the trigger once, one bullet comes out. it fires as fast as you can pull that trigger as quickly as your finger can work.
1:43 pm
so the -- there's this fear of what the administration, dianne feinstein, calls the assault weapon. the assault weapon is technically what he referred to as automatic weapon, not used in crimes. they are highly regulated by the a.t.f. they are extremely expensive. people can't afford them. rifles, they are rarely used in crimes in this country. there are about 11,000 people killed by a firearm every year in america, and about 300 and some are by rifle of any type. even according to dianne feinstein who sponsors this assault weapons ban, there are 32 what she calls assault weapon. what an assault weapon is a standard rifle, semiautomatic, but has certain cosmetic appearance. if it has things like a pistol grip, which means you can hold the gun underneath it, a collapsing stock, which is a way when the rifle goes into your shoulder here you can
1:44 pm
shorten it. i'm 5'2", in order to shoot an a.r., they adjust it to fit me. nothing changes in the functionality of the gun. it shoots just like every other gun. so there's a lot of misconceptions out there because of the language that's being used that there's no functional difference in any of the guns that anyone is talking about. host: emily miller, where did you grow up and did you grow up with firearms? guest: i grew up in baltimore. my father had a handgun for self-protection. had a carry permit. but it was not discussed with his daughters. i found it one day. i was looking under a seat in his car. and saw the revolver under there. as newly -- i do suggest people who have gun owners and have children to keep it to lock up and teach your children about the gun. this is a gun.
1:45 pm
it is a weapon of self-defense. you teach them the basics. i would suggest teaching the basics of which every gun owner, user ever knows. first thing you are taught and you are drilled, keep your trigger off the -- finger off the trigger until you fire. know what's behind it. i do think, you know, i was a girl, i think if i was a boy i probably would have been more curious about that revolver under the seat. that's how accidents happen is when not my father is going to kill me after this interview, not that he put us at risk at all, you know, i do think there is -- there's not something to hide from children. don't make it a mystery. this is something we have in our home for self-defense and teach them the simple laws so if one day the kids start playing it with their friends, at least they have the simple basic rules that we all use. every gun owner uses and keep the finger off the trigger and
1:46 pm
keep it in a safe direction so if something happens nobody will get hurt. host: $435 it took to you get your gun license in d.c. if you were a resident of virginia, how would those two figures change? host: it would take me 10 minutes and zero dollars. i think $2 is the cost to do the f.b.i. ncis check. i live in d.c. it's a mile across the river. that's why these laws are so ridiculous. there's more crime and four months and that's what these gun control laws and there are so many of these laws being passed in states like connecticut, new york, new jersey, delaware. they're going to have the exact same result as we've seen in new york and chicago as well. where you have to register every gun, where the government knows where every gun is and you have to go through all these hoops. and it doesn't reduce crime and it doesn't prevent mass shootings.
1:47 pm
all it does is make law-abiding people nor vulnerable. whereas -- for example, if i lived across the potomac river, i would have a gun in a few minutes, background check, law-abiding person, take it home that day. host: monica brady tweets into you, emily miller, i own a glock 19 and s&w m&p shield in .9 millimeter. both excellent. accurate and easy to aim. i am a c.c.h. instructor too. do you know what that is? guest: conceal and carry. host: who was your trainer? host: in order to take that five-hour class, it's no longer required by d.c. the governor in maryland is trying to enforce it in maryland right now even though the police chief in d.c. said
1:48 pm
it doesn't work and we don't need it. i eventually on my own, not through the police, list of instructors found a woman in maryland and, a, it was a woman so i felt a lot safer than going to some man's house, but she also taught out -- taught the class out a real storefront and had a real class in gun safety and training so i felt safer doing that. host: bruce, summit, new jersey, please go ahead with your question or comment for emily miller of "the washington times." caller: one of the things i found most frustrating and profound, at least from my perspective, everybody's talking about how this issue can be or cannot be addressed through legislation. what i believe there's two things going on here that you can't legislate. the first thing -- one is about truth with how you are responding with your emotions and the other is truth of how you're responding with facts trying to support a opinion. the first part of emotions, if
1:49 pm
you look at some of the killers out there, and i'm not saying necessarily the ones in the schoolyard taking down 13, 14 people, if you find out where they got their mindset from, they found validation, not from video games, but from other people. sometimes from the people even on these talk shows where they're talking about how the government is taking their guns and subjew gaiting them. or you walk in a bar and you have two guys talking in violent language about what they need to do to their ex-girlfriends. i think when the community overall hears people talking about this, the first thing we need to do is point their finger at them and say shame. we need a bully pulpit to do it, including people in the media doing it. i have heard callers on your show right now calling in talking about how, you know, they're so concerned with the government coming after them. i heard one of your callers say, i'm under attack. come on. get real. the man's not that important. we're not out to attack him. this is some mellow drama
1:50 pm
people are creating, and they feed upon it and eventually people go out there and they want to kill or they feel more justified in it. i have think that's sort of being honest with yourself and the second part is being honest with the facts and how they support a position. host: all right, bruce, let's get a response from our guest, emily miller. guest: i'm not exactly sure who he's saying is giving these threats. obviously if it's a criminal and anybody ever hears any criminal saying i am going to kill people or do something, they should call the police. host: emily, i apologize. some of our viewers who are gun owners saying i am worried about my right to bear arms. caller: well, i think that's total -- guest: well, i think that's totally legitimate. we have the president that wants to ban cosmetic, scary features, or a magazine that has an arbitrary limit of 10 rounds. this is going on. we have bills in missouri
1:51 pm
saying they want to confiscate guns. a bill in washington state just got pulled that would have allowed the law enforcement to go into houses without the -- without -- violating your search and seizure rights and taking your guns. it's happening in every state right now. new york passed laws. maryland is about to. it's not an exaggeration to say this is the greatest assault on the second amendment that's ever happened in this country. host: emily miller is joining us from the blue ridge arsenal gun store and range. the store is open. it's in chantilly, virginia. you are hearing some of the muffled shots of people from the range. but our colleague, pedro echevarria, is also out there. >> i'm with earl curtis, he's the owner of the gunshop. how did you end up owning this store? >> 10 years ago i wanted to get out of the i.t. business. i wanted something nontechnical. i always shot guns and decided
1:52 pm
to purchase blue ridge arsenal. >> what's it like owning guns outside of washington, d.c.? >> i live in the state of veafment virginia is a very gun-friendly state. it's a great thing actually. >> and so from the federal government side, when you see proposals like the president's proposal on gun violence and some in congress, how does that affect not only you but your store and especially customers who come to your store? >> well, it makes law-abiding gun owners afraid. why should they take away their rights when they're not committing any crimes? so sales have been up, and it was a good year anyway, but it's going to be an even better year ever since the tragedy in newtown. >> sales and interest, especially after december, is that when they started to go up? >> yes. >> talk a little bit, then, about some of the things you pay attention to, policy-wise, what gets your interest most of all? >> well, you know, a lot of
1:53 pm
things get my interest. number one, we already do a background check. number two, we already have something that says, have you been newly adjudicated, already on the form? so let's take care of the existing laws that we already have. let's enforce those laws before we want to add new ones that won't work. >> curtis, this shop has been busy since you opened at 9:00. tell us about the kinds of people that come in and take advantage of your store. >> just everyday people who enjoy the sport and want to practice, who want to -- who want to basically practice with their handgun. this is a great sport. what we teach here is education, safety and awareness. so the people who are here are number one training, learning how to use their handguns and also enjoying the sport. host: pedro, if you could ask mr. curtis two things. what was the licensing process like him to become a licensed
1:54 pm
gun dealer and what kind of security does he have at the store with all those guns in there? >> two questions. one, what kind of licensing did you have to go through to become a licensed gun dealer, and what do you do as far as security is concerned? >> there are several things i had to do. i had to apply for a federal firearm license to own this store. that was the first thing. and you have to show you have a storefront and of course we do have a storefront. as far as security, we have several measures around here, both physical and also internet security to handle things around here. i am not going to mention what we have as far as security. >> how regularly are you visited by the a.t.f.? >> once a year. >> is it always consistent? >> it is always consistent. we have a good relationship
1:55 pm
with the a.t.f. we get calls for traces. we do our paperwork. we make sure things get done. we've refused a lot of sales so, yeah, they come by once a year. >> number one reason you would refuse a sale? >> these guys, if they feel uncomfortable, we've actually had customers ask how to do certain things to a person and you say, look, this is where this stops. >> earl curtis, he owns the blue ridge arsenal. has been gracious opening his shop to us. mr. curtis, thank you. >> thank you. host: emily miller of "the washington times" is also out at blue ridge with us. by the way, man can brady followed up and say that c.c.h. stands for conceal carry handgun. emily miller, you had two out of three of those words ready so we appreciate that. anything you heard from mr. curtis that you'd like to respond to? guest: i'm sorry. i couldn't hear mr. curtis. host: oh, i apologize for that.
1:56 pm
we will continue to take calls. patrick in montana, you are on. emily miller of "the washington times" is our guest. caller: hi. good morning. i had a question about -- with all the talk going on about how they wanted to limit magazine capacities of handguns and rifles, would that be applicable, too, shouldn't that also be applicable to the government, if 10 rounds is good for the average american citizen, shouldn't 10 rounds also be good enough for the government? host: emily miller? guest: it's a good point. it's a very, very good point. yes, obviously if the government thinks a state, for example, thinks that 10 rounds is plenty that a person needs to defend themselves then it should be plenty for the law enforcement. a company called olympic arms in washington state announced recently it would no longer sale its firearms to law enforcement in new york state for that exact reason, saying if you don't think it's good
1:57 pm
enough -- if that's all you need, the 10-round mags, we are not giving them to the law enforcement anyway. you know, 10-round thing is so arbitrary. there's nothing -- the average shooting is four rounds go off. it's completely invented. it's not based anything scientifically. it's arbitrary number and that's why new york arbitrarily came up with seven recently. governor cuomo pushed through that law. you know, it makes -- it also makes sense as far as crime. the criminal in the streets which is almost all the crime we got with firearms, all you have to do is change magazine. first off, they are not going to be switching out their 13-round magazines for 10-round ones. that's not going to be happening obviously. but even if they do, changing a magazine, as i said, i'm only been -- i've only been shooting for a year, i change a magazine in two seconds. it takes a press of one button
1:58 pm
and you put a new one in. it doesn't change how many rounds you get off. host: emily miller, did you bring your gun, your sig sauer out with you to blue ridge? guest: you know, i didn't. i didn't know there was a gun range here. if there was a gun range i would have torn up a little bit of paper. i will probably rent a gun here afterwards and be a little bit late to work. host: so if you were caught with your gun in d.c. in your car, what's the penalty? host: well, there -- guest: well, there is a federal transport law. it applies to all states. more states have restrictive laws. you can transport your gun as long as it's unloaded and in case and locked in your trunk between any place where you can legally carry and possess to anywhere you can carry and possess. in washington, i can only carry and possess it in my home. as long as my gun is unloaded
1:59 pm
in the lock fwocks -- i drive an s.u.v. so it has to be far in the back. i can drive to the gun range. if i want to stop for gas i can. if i want to stop and eat i can. there is a lot of confusion because states like new jersey, new york have their own interpretations of it. and it's really unfortunate because i've done a lot of stories of people, especially veterans, who are legally transporting their gun, local jurisdictions like d.c. don't know the federal law and these people end up spending the night in jail and have legal fees before it's thrown out because of the federal law. so it is just good to know what the federal law is. maybe gun owners who are driving across the country want to print that out with them, take that law with them but, again, as long as it's unloaded and locked in your case in your car you can go between those two places if, for example, if i were to ever walk outside my home with my gun and walk down the street or, you know, used it for any purpose and was caught, i would face one year
2:00 pm
in jail and $1,000 fine. and i might add, d.c. is the only -- is the most ridiculous -- within their firearms law they also have a law that your mace has to be registered. just personal defense. i mean, they really have it out for women in d.c. which is terrifying because rape and sexual assaults were up 50% in the district of columbia last year. . and the penalty for not registering your mace is the same. one year in jail and being a woman in d.c. means being a city -- sitting duck. as his really a shame. host: if your pulled over, are you required to say you have a gun in the back? guest: very good question. if law enforcement pulls you over and asks if you have a
2:01 pm
firearm, you do have a constitutional right to remain silent. even if you are doing it legally, you have the right. there are jurisdictions that have different laws. they cannot win in court, but they can put you in court. you cannot say you do not have a gun, but -- you cannot say you do not have a gun when you do, but you do have the right to remain silent. if you are pulled over, just to remain silent. you are doing it legally. if you are a criminal, you are not going to admit it anyway. that is 99% of the problem. criminals will just lie. host: are you a member of the nra or gun owners of america or anything? >> no, i'm not. i believe in their efforts, but i do not think i should be a member of those organizations. guest: -- host: family miller
2:02 pm
from the "new york times." james in florida, please go ahead. , mis emily. -- miss emily. i have a question for you. when i was pretty young caller: good morning, c-span. ma'am, good morning, mis emily. -- miss emily. i have a question for you. when i was pretty young, when we shotguns under the seat or, any instance like that, we were scared. we were not raised to go to gun ranges like you were talking. that is part of the problem we are having with these schools. you are teaching kids to shoot at nine, 10 years old and i think it is wrong. i'm not saying -- i misspoke. my other thing is, the convicted
2:03 pm
felon that called a while ago was speaking out about getting guns across state lines. i know he probably doesn't deserve one, but how does he protect himself? you said a convicted felon should not have a gun, ever. ok, let's just say somebody broke in on him -- host: we have a lot on the table, what is your response to that caller? guest: i was just saying that as a society, convicted felons lose their constitutional right to bear arms. i just don't see that changing. it is hard pressed to know what is in the heart of a convicted felon. it is about decisions and the consequences to it. to clarify what i said about children, lots of families take their kids to the range early.
2:04 pm
i see kids at ranges all the time. they also teach them to hunt early. not encouraging families, i just don't think you should keep guns a secret. i think by doing that, you keep a curiosity. it is just my personal opinion. i think if you are a gun owner in your home,keep your gun locked up, explained to them the basic safety. point in a safe direction. if they get curious or break into your safe, they will have all the safety things in place. host: on the gun-owners line. and jennifer in pennsylvania, go ahead. caller: i am a mother and a grandmother. i have two daughters your age -- you look to be about their age. i'm a longtime member of the nra and gun owners of america.
2:05 pm
as a journalist, have you ever seen or heard the documentary "innocence betrayed" or "betrayed innocence?" guest: i have not. host: why? caller: a man called and asked, as law-abiding citizens, you have a constitutional right to own and bear firearms and be worried about the government imposing a threat. the documentary is absolutely amazing, in that it documents with footage, fax, and truth, what has happened in the history of the civilized world when governments have gone in and confiscated firearms and the ability of individuals to protect themselves. guest: there is a long history
2:06 pm
and i would love to watch the documentary. and i will. i have heard frompeople in this last year since i have started writing about this issue, what really hits home to me are the people that i hear that are survivors of the holocaust, they say the first thing the nazis did, the first knock on the door was to get your guns and they never knocked again. general registration of gun owners -- you have all these things whenever there are dictatorships. they know who owns a gun, and they will take your guns away from you. we can talk about self-defense and hunting, but the second amendment was written for prevention of government tyranny. that is why this objective of the obama administration to get rid of guns that came out in an
2:07 pm
internal justice department memo, the only way this complete background check system will work is if we have a registration for every gun in america and every person of america. that is the opposite of what the founding fathers intended. and why people should have the second amendment right to keep and bear arms. host: emily miller, her blog series is called "emily gets her gun." if you would like to read the whole series, she has joined us from blue ridge arsenal. thank you for your time this morning. >> very quickly, our entire series on guns in america is available on our website, c- coming up, we will head to capitol hill for a meeting with democrats, who are gathering to discuss how budget cuts will
2:08 pm
affect federal employees. that will be live starting at 2:30 eastern. you can see it right here on c- span. coming up tonight, we are looking at the issue of school choice and the role vouchers and charter schools play in k-12 education. at 8:00, watch a presentation discussing the pros and cons of charter schools and if vouchers make a difference in school quality. after that, we will be joined by an education reporter who covers charter schools and vouchers, and he will respond to your calls. that is coming up tonight on c- span starting at 8:00 eastern. israeli professor shmuel bar
2:09 pm
yesterday warned that nuclear proliferation could lead to a similar problem in asia as those countries begin to rely less on america's ability to prevent a nuclear deterrent. >> it is a pleasure to be here. i like how you introduced the moderator to introduce the speaker. that is a good way to go. it is a pleasure to be here, and i think our topic is a very timely one, one in which, again, there's probably no other area in the world more unstable and more of a concern with regard to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. indeed, it is often called the ark of instability in that region because of that. one of our focus is is on iran, despite the fact that they have been subject to numerous
2:10 pm
sanctions, numerous regulations, and they continue to embark upon this effort to acquire nuclear capability. despite also the fact that we've had a long history -- over 30 years -- of efforts to create either a middle east nuclear weapons free zone or weapons of mass destruction-free zone. charitably i would not call it a total failure, despite the effort of the review conference to have a nuclear weapon-free conference last year. no one was able to agree. given the instability in the region and other things. if we do not have disarmament efforts that will work, if we do not have any efforts trying to
2:11 pm
stop a country from acquiring nuclear weapons capability, what is left? and i think what is left is a deterrent posture, which dr. shmuel bar will address. quickly, he is director of studies at the institute of policy and strategy. he served for over 30 years in the israeli government in intelligence and then analytic operations in the israeli office of prime minister, and he is focused primarily on issues related to israeli issues. without further ado, dr. bar. [applause] >> i apologize for not having any slides. thank you for the presentation. first of all, the question i will address is multilateral nuclear deterrence and if it is feasible, particularly in what seems to be inevitable.
2:12 pm
shortly, my answer -- and i will not keep you in suspense -- probably not. questions? [laughter] good. now i will seriously address it because this is something i have personally been involved in, a counter proliferation efforts, for decades. sadly, we have reached the point where apparently we are entering a new stage. first of all, we have to understand when we say nuclear deterrence, we tend to be drawn back to the paradigm of the cold war. i would like to explain why the cold war deterrence paradigm is actually completely invalid in the context of what we are going to see in the middle east. nuclear deterrence between the two superpowers during the cold war was based on a number of features -- second strike capability, which both held. highly responsive and robust command and control intelligence
2:13 pm
capabilities. very accurate satellite intelligence regarding the intentions and capabilities of the other side, which could alleviate concerns. effective bilateral communications between the leaderships of the two countries. minimal public opinion, which intervened in the more rational realpolitik management. most of the nuclear alerts and crises which did take place during the cold war, the public in both countries actually never knew about it until after the cold war. a common base of rationality -- in other words, nuclear deterrence we can liken it in terms of a dance, it is more like a professional tango, not a free-for-all folk dance. you have to be extremely
2:14 pm
professional, and the prerequisite for nuclear deterrence in this context, we have to address. first of all, the rational actor model. many people will invoke that. i would like to say this is a custom more honored in the breach than in the observance. the rational actor model -- if the rational actor model were really true, most of what we know in history probably would never have happened. if everybody takes a look at his history lessons, then he will understand that. then we have an argument taken to the extreme with the argument that nuclear weapons make the country's responsible. once they get nuclear-weapons, then they get a sense of responsibility, a sense from heaven, and it is, "oh, my god, look at what i have got in my
2:15 pm
hand, and i had better be careful." if that were true, i would suggest the united states now sell all its nuclear weapons to the rest of the world, and you will make all the countries responsible and it will be good will on earth and peace toward men. apparently, we do not really believe in the rational actor model. i would like to quote somebody with far more experience in nuclear conflict that i have, mcnamara, who said that kennedy was rational, castro was rational, and rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. let's remember that. the question is not actually deterrence. the question is the behavior of the various factors in kinetic situations and escalation -- control of escalation processes. far too much has been focused on deterrence as a static process
2:16 pm
and much too little on escalation and the dynamics of escalation in various contexts. i raised a question regarding competence. from my experience, i think that confidence in american nuclear deterrence toward a potential iranian nuclear threat to the countries of the middle east -- in other words, confidence that the american extended deterrence is enough to prevent other countries from going nuclear is actually at its lowest level that it could be. there is no such confidence. i think it is almost a bygone conclusion that when iran is perceived as coming finally close to a nuclear capability, then saudi arabia, turkey, egypt, and other countries will move forward. this will, of course, raise the question of israel's nuclear posture, which, according to
2:17 pm
foreign press history seems to that,- i don't know about of course. we tend to see nuclear weapons as something devastating, something totally last resort, but is this a way that people in the middle east are going to see it? if we read the discussions in circles of islamic scholars who have very theoretically raised the questions of nuclear weapons, then they try to find some simile to what nuclear weapons are, and one of the interesting ones is that it is indiscriminate killing and in the old days, you would throw a rock over the walls of the city and you did not see who you killed. i of the prophet muhammed used catapults, that means today, he would use nuclear weapons -- if the profit mohammed used
2:18 pm
catapults -- if the prophet mohammed used catapults. i think once iran goes nuclear, we will have a severe fall line, and the iranian bomb will be perceived as a shi'ite bomb, threatening the sunni dominance in the middle east. we will probably see very close to a pakistani nuclear presence and pakistani extended deterrence in saudi arabia. the saudis financed the pakistani nuclear program. they had no prior agreement with them, but if saudi arabia calls for it, they will provide them with nuclear weapons. i doubt the pakistanis would just deliver a bomb. they would probably station an element in the region, which will raise the question regarding for the first time
2:19 pm
pakistani second strike capability against india, which would certainly complicate the south asian complex. escalation and risk proclivity in the middle east are far higher than they ever were between the two superpowers, but i think the main problem is command-and-control. we have to address the question of how command and control of nuclear weapons influences deterrents. first of all, questions of custody. in the united states, it is accepted that military people who have access to nuclear weapons go through some sort of security clearance. we trust then. this is the way that most of the western countries -- israel certainly has betting procedures, but most of the countries in the middle east, you will not provide nuclear weapons to anyone who is not your tribesmen, your cousin, so in other words, there will be a
2:20 pm
concentration of capabilities -- book delivery capabilities and r&d. the authority of small groups -- can anyone imagine an american- style football or american-style authorization process in a country where you have a supreme leader who is directly connected, and would any supreme leader allow an elected president to have any influence over his decision to use strategic weapons? i doubt it. it just does not fit into the paradigm of the regime. we also have to recall that command and control is very heavily culturally influence. we know today that american paradigms' of command and control, french paradigms', and certainly russian paradigms' differ according to the political systems that they were involved in the.
2:21 pm
the second strike consideration -- there would be no match in the middle east which could counterbalanced this proclivity. for the foreseeable future, the only country which may possibly have a second strike capability is israel. in other words, countries would be in constant fear of "use it or lose it." add to that the absence of satellite intelligence, signal intelligence, then the level of fear and the level of concern because you do not really know what the other side is doing and because you know that if the other side strikes first, you do not have second strike capability, you probably do not have the propensity of various factors to strike first.
2:22 pm
the other thing is we are talking about multilateral situations. we are talking about systems in which every country has some sort of enmity towards every other. when one country sees that another country has gone on nuclear alert or is doing another nuclear exercise, how will it know that it is directed against the other guy and not against them? in other words, we will witness spirals of escalation into nuclear alert, and no one will actually know the true intentions of the other side. as we some appeared that multilateral deterrence in a polynuclear region where each country is a potential threat to its neighbor, it may work for some time, but statistically, you have to be lucky all the time, and the chances of being lucky all the time are rather slim. i will leave you to decide if we want to live in a sort of situation and what the ramifications in terms of energy stability in that region are.
2:23 pm
i assume that a country like iran once it gets nuclear capability will learn quickly that the best way to raise oil prices is to go on nuclear alert. the moment you have a nuclear alert in the gulf, oil prices skyrocket. you make a quick few dollars. what happens if it does not work? i would address the question of how it affects the united states. certainly it affects israel. this is something which is concerning. from the point of view of the united states, the paradigm of american deterrence is strategic. in other words, you do have the capability if you want to destroy a nation or to destroy the world -- you and the russians together, certainly,
2:24 pm
but this is not what we are talking about. the nuclear weapons that iran and saudi arabia and egypt and the rest of the countries will have are somewhere around here version a style -- hiroshima style. they may even be considered tactical weapons. if this sort of tactical weapons -- for example, exploding a nuclear weapon somewhere in a desert area in saudi arabia just to warn the saudis what we can do, then how does the united states respond? does it respond with a massive nuclear attack? does it respond with some sort of tactical response? in other words, the flexibility and capability to downgrade the thinking of nuclear response from a strategic nuclear response to some sort of tactical nuclear response in the context of the possibility of use of nuclear weapons by countries in the region i think is something that should be thought about.
2:25 pm
so on that happy note, -- i am trying to be optimistic. this is my optimistic presentation. i leave my pessimistic one for another time. [applause] >> do we have any questions? comments? over there. here is one over here. >> [inaudible] on the perception of the subject, what, in your view, in israel and in the middle east -- do you believe there is a strong -- is the perception strong that the united states,
2:26 pm
given a regional conflict utilizing chemical weapons or other things, that the united states would use a nuclear weapon? or is that, given the current climate and what is going on, that perception lost? let's just leave it at that. what do you think is the view of israel and countries in that part of the world? >> i think that the view in israel, certainly, and saudi arabia and other countries in the middle east is that the united states has abdicated its role in the middle east. we are talking about perceptions. america has an enormous military capability, but you do not see the military capability. you see your projection of what may be in the future. there is almost a consensus, at least among the arab countries that i speak with, and i speak
2:27 pm
with a lot of them, and they are very skeptical about the possibility that the united states will use nuclear weapons in such a scenario. they look at the nuclear posture, and, for example, it says if an ally of the united states to which the united states has provided extended assurances is attacked by a nuclear state or something along those lines, then the united states will respond -- the precise response will be decided by the president of the united states in his capacity as chief of the armed forces. one person said to me that gives a lot of room for maneuver, everything from nuking them back to not inviting them to the next olympics. this is the attitude in the middle east. i think it is a foregone conclusion that nobody is going to rely on american extended deterrence in the middle east in
2:28 pm
the foreseeable future. >> we had a question over here. >> i am from the center for nonproliferation studies. i am interested in regional perceptions. i would like to ask you about the dynamics that you mentioned with pakistan overseeing the u.s. plans to withdraw from afghanistan with plans to keep a number of troops stationed in pakistan. wondering how that whole situation would be affected if pakistan were to some regional parties and how relations between the countries would be affected? >> the expectation is that pakistan is going to go through what i would call a vertical meltdown. it will not officially become a
2:29 pm
failed state, but when organs of the state start acting on their own, and at the height of pakistani integrity of the nation, you can imagine when the country starts to disintegrate in -- at various levels, what we are going to see in terms of proliferation and involvement of pakistan in all sorts of things which are against our interests. i think that the whole issue of india-pakistan would be exacerbated as a result of the potential of pakistani involvement in the middle east, which is also something which is almost obvious. the saudis did finance them, and they do have a prior agreement with them, things that the indians would be extremely concerned about what they will see as a second strike capability.
2:30 pm
there are a lot of ramifications here, which will affect not only us but also, i think, american policy towards south asia. >> somebody here? >> i wanted to ask your thoughts about the prospects for the wmd- free zone conference that was supposed to have been held last year. how is that looking from your perspective? >> you can see the rest of this discussion online at live now to capitol hill for a meeting of democrats gathering to discuss how these drastic budget cuts that are set to happen next friday will affect government employees.
2:31 pm
>> [inaudible] next week because of an impending problem called the sequester. an employee in baltimore who works processing social security retirement or disability claims, who will be furloughed or let go, and it is also about the person who is waiting to hear the outcome of that claim, we either he or she is in hawaii or texas or new jersey or new hampshire -- whether he or she is in hawaii or texas or new jersey or new hampshire. hearings about a child who may not have the ability to go to a head start center in the weeks or months ahead because of what we called around here the sequester. yet, this hearing is also about the soldier or sailor or marine
2:32 pm
who is on duty in afghanistan or some other dangerous place in the world who may not get the support that he or she so richly needs from the department of defense and the services that place them in that position apparel -- position of peril. eight days from now, a tremor will hit the american economy that is both unwelcome and unnecessary. it is an across-the-board cut in spending that, according to some estimates, will cost us 750,000 american jobs. as we will hear today, there are some estimates that that is too conservative. if one takes into account the ripple effects of the tremor, it may cost us many more jobs than that, but even by the most conservative estimates, 750,000 americans who worked in contract in firms, research companies, universities, hospitals, child
2:33 pm
care centers, schools, businesses small and large around the country, and who work for the government itself, will find themselves and their country at risk. this does not need to happen. led by my friend and colleague from whom we will hear in a little while about the specifics, we put forward a constructive, common-since alternative to avoid these 750,000 layoffs. the alternative, frankly, involves closing tax loopholes that the wealthiest among us can exploit and take advantage of, and stopping mindless subsidies to huge oil companies and agribusinesses. it makes sense. what does not make sense is as the american economy sits eight days away from the presses, the congress is not here. members of congress are in their
2:34 pm
districts working assiduously. some are traveling -- someone business, someone pleasure. it is understandable, but our job is to represent the people who sent us here and make the hard decisions, not to avoid them. this is an artificial, unnecessary, self-inflicted crisis that should end today. democrats in the house of representatives do not believe that every person should necessarily have to vote for our plan, although we would like them to. but we do believe that every member of the house, liberal and conservative, republican and democrat, has the obligation to vote for something. if your position is -- keep the sequester in place, fine, but go home and tell your constituents. if your position is there is a better way to stop it, let's hear it, let's vote on it. if your position is the way we laid out to stop the sequester,
2:35 pm
let's take a vote on that. there are many responsible solutions to this problem. we think we have the best one, but it is absolutely irresponsible and indefensible not to try to solve the problem at all, and that is where we sit today. we will hear from a panel of distinguished witnesses who will tell us various aspects of how this sequester will adversely affect the american people. and economists who will paint the big picture for us of what it looks like -- a leading voice for one of the most dynamic and progressive industries in our country who will talk about the damage that awaits that very vital industry. a person who is trusted with the stewardship of our nation's children, a fifth grade teacher, who will talk about what this may mean to her students and their families. finally, a leader in public health who will talk about what this may mean to any american who is susceptible, and she will say, when there is a bacterium
2:36 pm
or virus to which you get exposed, you get sick, and everyone else around you might, and without a public health system that is vibrant and robust, the consequences are often higher. i will introduce our witnesses. we will hear each of them give brief statement outlining their positions. we will then have mr. van hollen go into detail about the plan we believe will solve this problem, and then we will have dialogue between those who are here and the witnesses. our first witness is professor fuller, who joined the faculty at george mason university in 1994 as professor of public policy and development. he serves as director of public policy from july of 1998 through june of 2000, and from july 2001
2:37 pm
through july 2002, to september 2004. the board of visitors appointed him university professor. in july 2002, he was named faculty chair and director for the center for regional analysis. he is an accomplished macro economist. graduated from rutgers university in new jersey, had the good sense to do that, and we will welcome him in a few minutes. ms. blakey has been an outstanding public servant for a long time. she was always incredibly helpful to us. she is now the president and ceo of the aerospace industries association, which is the most authoritative and influential voice of the aerospace and defense industry. the association represents more than 150 leading manufacturers
2:38 pm
along with a supplier base of nearly 200 associate members. it is the largest membership in the 94-year history of the association, which reflects very well on its leadership. she regulated the nation's airways as faa administrator, managing 4000 employees and a budget of $14 billion a year. she has been a great public servant. she has continued that service as president of her association. we welcome her today. megan allen, i dare say, has the most important job of anyone in this room today. she is a teacher, 2010 florida teacher of the year. quite an achievement. she happily spends her days working as a fifth grade teacher at the shock -- shaw elementary
2:39 pm
school in tampa, florida. she is a teacherpreneur with the center for teaching quality -- i guess that is a teacher/the entrepreneur -- teacher/entrepreneur. she is a teacher whose students are not only in her classroom, but in her heart. mary has been secretary of the state of washington's dept. of health since march of 1999, now working with our former colleague, the governor of washington. she served under two governors. prior to working for the state, she served for 20 years as administrator of the northeast tri county health district. we welcome each of you. we look forward to your testimony. unlike me, i would ask you to push the button on your microphone so you can be heard. dr. fuller, why don't we begin
2:40 pm
with you? >> thank you very much, chairman. thank you for inviting me, members. this is a really important discussion we are having today. we see that the rest of the country is beginning to understand the consequences. it has been a slow education, but it is what you are doing and others before you -- but what your doing and others before you has really helped bring this to the front page. i just want to review some of the impacts. we know what they are. i have written several reports on this, and my numbers get used by other people. we could argue about the numbers, but we are talking about jobs and income and economic growth. we have a very fragile economy at this point. 44 months into the recovery, but it does not feel like it. the economy is struggling to sustain the expansion. we are looking forward to a much better year in 2014 and 2015.
2:41 pm
getting there is the problem, so the timing of sequestration could not be worse. here we are, moving towards the end of the first quarter of 2013, and the economy is dead in the water. if sequestration goes forward -- i know others may use some of these same numbers -- 2 million jobs are at stake. half of those are contractors and subcontractors and businesses that are suppliers, vendors that support the supply chain of services and products to government agencies as well as the entire federal system. half of these, in round terms, our jobs tied to the defense
2:42 pm
department. half of them are tied to other agencies. this is not just about defense. every single agency and the services they provide. we are talking about over $100 billion in labor income. this is taxable income that will be lost. so we underline the revenue stream of government by doing this. it does not make sense. more importantly, we give back about 2/3 of projected gdp growth this year. it is meager to begin with, but rather than growing at $300 billion this year, we are going to give up more than $200 billion of that by just the loss of business. marion and i have been working on this for some time, and we talk about the jobs on main street. these are not just contractor
2:43 pm
jobs. there are a lot of federal worker jobs here. hundreds of thousands of federal workers have their earnings or jobs at stake, but it is beyond that. 45% of all of these jobs we are talking about -- 45% of 2 million workers are retailers, home builders, insurance salesman, people that do not know they are tied to the federal government in any way except federal contractors spend their earnings. we are talking about somewhere around $35 billion in forgone federal payroll and a larger amount in private payroll that will not be spent, will not generate local taxes, will not support sales taxes, and local governments understand this already. this is about the worst time in
2:44 pm
the business cycle that you could pick to go forward with sequestration. it is not good public policy. the idea of cutting uniformly without differentiating between what service is not critical and which ones we might be able to forgo if we do have to cut back spending -- and i think there is some consensus that less spending is probably in order -- it is how you do it and when you do it. the impacts are already evident. consumer confidence fell sharply in january. retail sales are going to follow. they will not continue to be robust as they were through the end of last year. housing sales have pulled back, job growth has slowed. unemployment is struggling.
2:45 pm
if this happens, unemployment will go up by a full percentage point. so this is not smart. i will leave it at that. the citizens of this country should not be subjected to this kind of public policy. it is actually a lack of public policy. so i urge you to do what you can to bring your fellow congressmen and women together to use some intelligence and push this back, resolve it in a balanced way. thank you. >> thank you, professor fuller. ms. blakey speaks for tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of those main street workers that you made reference to. >> thank you. you are exactly right.
2:46 pm
over 1 million employees out there, so, yes, i am very proud to be here as ceo of aerospace industries association. make no mistake -- you are holding this hearing at a critical time because the nation will be severely impacted by sequestration if it goes forward. you heard the numbers dr. fuller uses. they are enormous in terms of economic impact, but i have to tell you that our workforce is a group of dedicated folks making middle-class wages in highly skilled jobs, and this is a group that will be impacted along with many others. it is indicative that our largest union stands shoulder to shoulder with us in opposing these kinds of cuts. they have been our partner every step of the way. the impact of the sequester on the department defense is
2:47 pm
dangerous. defense will bear 50% of the sequester, even though it accounts for only 20% of federal spending. this is in addition to the $487 billion that was already mandated by the budget control act in 2011. special provisions in the law that everyone should be aware of because they are very difficult to predict -- military personnel are exempt, and therefore, the entire cuts must come from other parts of the budget. training, fuel, supplies, equipment. in addition, the law requires zero in the to reach back -- omb to reach back to prior years. every member of the joint chiefs
2:48 pm
of staff has testified that this will cause chaos. we talked about non--- let me talk about non-defense for just a moment. civilian agencies will also be very hard hit. just a couple of examples -- the faa insurers the smooth and say flow of air traffic in our nation skies. the agency will have to implement rolling furloughs to almost every one of the 15,000 air traffic controllers that work very hard. in addition, furloughs at tsa, customs, border patrol -- huge lines. this affects everyone in america. people traveling with their families as well as people traveling on business. secretary of college, just the other day testified that reduced funding would make a four to five-hour wait and even the
2:49 pm
average security screening wait time -- another hour added. as fewer people travel, we lose millions in user fee revenues we really need for our transportation system. and the local airports. all of these areas get hit very hard. i really could not have said it better than one of your former colleagues -- i'm referring to the former secretary of transportation, who called the sequester by far the most devastating budget cuts to the faa in 54 years. let me mention one other thing that i think is important to all of you -- space programs. this will hit the weather satellite program is very hard. think about the next community that gets hit with a superstorm like sandy.
2:50 pm
sequester will cause great and in some cases very permanent harm to both our national security and our economy, so let me just say -- i know the hour is late, but action can be taken. the president and this congress have enormous ability to set sequester aside. thank you. >> thank you. listening to the litany of potential catastrophes you talk about, it strikes me that very often, catastrophe is unavoidable. here it is completely avoidable. it is completely artificial and completely within our power to do something about. we appreciate you saying that to us. ms. allen, welcome. good to have you with us. >> good afternoon. i am the 2010 florida teacher of the year. i am board certified, but most proudly and most important, to get to call myself a fifth grade
2:51 pm
teacher. we have about 600 students with over 90% of them on free and reduced lunch. it two language arts classes and have a total of 30 students. let me paint a picture, showing the faces of my students, the faces impacted by all of this. let's dive into what it means to be a student at a high-needs school because today, i speak for my 36 students. i have 10 with special needs who work with the extra support of an exceptional education teacher. i have two students whose families show up to every event just in the best, for their dreams and hopes are placed in their students. i have five students who are english-language lerner's receiving daily support from a translator so they can better understand academics and so i as a teacher can better communicate with their families. i have a student in a live-in
2:52 pm
program for troubled youths. i have four students i know are homeless, though i suspect there are many hidden homeless in my classroom. i have five girls who receive extra support in large groups because they are girls with low self-esteem. i have two young ladies who receive intense counseling, one because she's a 10-year-old rape victim, and one because she's a 10-year-old with anxiety about taking care of her siblings now that her mom has been deported. i have one student who is checked out every thursday because that is the day she has visitation with her mother who is in jail. i have students who are afraid to go home because of the pilots in their neighborhoods, who go home hungry on weekends and look for two solid meals a day and sometimes snacks at school. most of all, i have 36 students who dream, who have beautiful bowles, who see school as the leverage to get out of poverty and achieve something amazing in life not only for themselves but
2:53 pm
for their families. our school is working to make this happen. our students are winning science bears making great games -- winning science fairs and making great gains. why is our schools successful despite these challenges? how do we help students with these intents social and academic needs? we use funding to provide our student with a lower teacher/student ratio. the support help lift our kids to their full potential while helping me and other teachers make sure we are meeting the needs of each and every child. we have social supports our students can narrow in focus on their academics. school psychologists, counselors, title when teachers, and teachers' aides work with students in small groups providing care and academic support to our students that they need. head start and solid pre-kit
2:54 pm
programs are vital to our success -- pre-k programs. academic and social instruction is one of our primary weapons. it is crucial to the success of every student. my students live in poverty and have special needs that federal funding helps. for example, keeping class sizes manageable so teachers can provide individual attention and support. for my students, this is life- changing. i would like to tell you about one of my students. remember, though, i just share his story. there are hundreds like him at my school and millions across america. my story is about a little boy named daniel. he started the school year with very low self-esteem, not really enjoying school because he had never felt successful. he showed us that year that he was a beautiful child who wrote beautiful poetry. most of it was about wrestling but he made it sound really public. he came up to me at the end of the school year, and he had a
2:55 pm
really shy way of walking. he was reaching out his hand and said he had something he wanted to give me. daniel is a child who is homeless. his mom works at denny's. he spends most of his afternoons badenny's, and i felt taking anything from him, so i gave him the response -- keep whatever it is. i have the memory of you. that i will take with me. he reached out his hand, and in his palm was a rock. i was confused at first, but then he said something that totally stopped me in my tracks. he said he was thinking it is like school. "school is my rock." that is when i realized the importance of education, school, and teachers, straight from the mouth of this child, and the truth hit me like a ton of bricks. school is the one place he knows
2:56 pm
he can count on. a matter what instabilities our students have, there is one thing they can count on, and that is cool -- no matter what instabilities our students have. passing tests is important, but it is not my main goal as an educator. we are there to be the rock for our children, to be the stable forces in their lives. we are there to help them see education as a stabilizing force in their lives. the looming cuts threaten all of this. the cuts are scheduled to take effect on march 1, just a week and a day from now. in my school district, where my 36 students sit today, 132 schools stand to lose $3 million. on top of that, we will be getting $2 million less for special education, the equivalent of shipping the entire cost of educating 1500 students with disabilities from
2:57 pm
the federal government to the county. programs serving my english- language learners -- we have 25,000 in my county -- will be cut as well. the impact will be harsh on the students in schools like the one it giant. students like mine, they are the reason at the elementary and secondary education act was passed in the first place. the goal is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain high-quality education. students like mine are the reason that individuals with disabilities education act was passed in the first place. in the name of daniel and my 36 students that i work to nurture and inspire every day, i urge you in the strongest possible terms to stop the sequestered. think of what it would mean to them and the millions of students just like them across america. so i leave you with one question -- what do i tell my students tomorrow? thank you for your time. >> your students and our country
2:58 pm
are very fortunate someone with your drive has chosen to be a teacher. we thank you for it, and we hope the answer you can give them tomorrow is that their elected officials are doing their job by voting on a plan to end this sequester and preserve the educational resources you so eloquently talked about today. we are working to give them that answer. we're very happy you are with us to give us the perspective on the importance of these cuts for the public health and infrastructure of our country. >> i serve as the secretary of health to washington state for the past 15 years. my job really is so that her kids do not get childhood diseases, among other things. i have a story i will share with you. our mission is simple -- the department of health works to
2:59 pm
protect and improve the health of people in washington state, and that is what public health was at its core. not every help decision is made in a doctor's office. most of them are vague -- made right in your communities. they are done to make sure that we have a response to an outbreak. food safety inspections go on every day. healthy choices are the easy choices for your constituents. we are the doctors, community health, public services, behavioral health professionals, laboratory and and health policy experts to protect and promote health where you live, work, and play. it is an enterprise. diseases, epidemics, small outbreaks, public health emergencies such as natural disasters do not recognize state boundaries or even international boundaries -- international borders.
3:00 pm
our agencies rely on a mix of federal grant funds, state funds, and the average state health agency receives funding, the largest portion of in my state it is 53% of our agency's budget and it supports our public health work. the kind of reductions we may be facing are $22 million in public health services and protections in a state less than seven million people. washington's state economy has been hit hard and we are still in a recession. we're facing a $2 billion shortfall in our budget that we will be preparing and that is in addition to $10 billion already reduced over the last six years. state funding for important public programs will be further targeted. in the last six years, we've been impacted by a 38% state are
3:01 pm
reduction that includes $5 million in family planning services not going on. our state tobacco fund was eliminated. these are dollars that make a difference. this is really about people. as you will see from this one story of our whooping cough outbreak last year in my state, the system is federal, state, local all working together. it takes funds from all sources and sequestration threats to be able to face the challenges. we had the highest rate in the country of whooping cough. we had an epidemic that was 4,800 cases of whooping cough. we had five babies die and many more hospitalized. thousands of families are impacted by the whooping cough
3:02 pm
bug. we're busy with what most people think is a disease of the past. this came after the budget reductions at both state and local levels. we have fewer public health nurses and staff to amount to the response. but respond, we did. h.h.s. assistance secretary helped us build an electronic disease reporting system. it is used for emergencies like our whooping cough epidemic was. it is important for us to know what is going on across the state and across the country. these programs will be impacted by sequestration and it is going to impact our ability to respond to public health emergencies, whether it is the fungal meningitis outbreak that you
3:03 pm
looked into last year or the whooping cough. these funds were used to mobile after the terrible destruction of one of missouri's critical hospital after the tornado, for example. we use grants to support our local epidemiologist. they identify and track diseases. they check out the unknown white powder that shows up when you don't know what it is. we're the ones keeping the communities informed. funds for the imyouization programs were made to make the whooping cough vaccine available to people with no insurance. medicare does not cover whooping cough. these immunization funds are core to the programs. our funds would be reduced if
3:04 pm
sequestration does impact next week. more than 4,fewer children will be immunized against whooping cough, polio and other diseases. our health funds will be reduced and we had to use those to inform pregnant moms. in conclusion, public health has taken its fair share of budget cuts even before federal sequestration. but again, this is about the negative health yolk. the adult that does -- outcome. >> the adult that does not get vaccinated. the furlough days that keep a laboratory detecting disease outbreaks to stop it before it spreads. these are very real every day occurrences public health is at a breaking point unless we
3:05 pm
support our public health in a more sustained way. our ability to respond quickly and competently will evaporated. getting our federal deficit under control is important. but so is protecting the heament safety of everyone in the united states. it is a tough job you have before you over the next few days and weeks to find a politically viable solution to the sequestration. but to put simply, federal sequestration is bad for the public's health. additional cuts in discretionary health programs would put the health, safety, and security of all americans at risk. thank you for this opportunity. >> thank you. i thank each of our witnesses for their exerpgsal preparation and compelling testimony. a days from now, unless the
3:06 pm
speaker districts us to vote we won't be able to deal with epidemics as we can. children in mrs. allen's classroom will lose their ability to speak the language and learn what they need in school. more importantly, they will begin to lose trust and faith. the million workers that mrs. blakey's association represents, too many of them will find themselves not being able to shop on main street or buy a car or house or refrigerator. as professor fuller told us, the most conservative estimate, 750,000 lost jobs and it could be higher depending on how one calculates that.
3:07 pm
2/3 evaporate because of this totally avoidable decision. constituents say you guys are good at describing the problem and telling us how much you care about the problem, but what are you willing to do about it? here's what we're eager to do. we want the speaker to return the house to washington. we want him to put on the floor our plan, which would avoid these 750,000 layoffs. let the house work its will. if people want to amend it or oppose it that is their screr right. it is not their -- discretionary right. chris van hollen is going to explain the substance of our alternative proposal to avoid this. he's going to have questions then we're going to turn to mr.
3:08 pm
cummings for questions as well. >> thank you for organizing this hearing on a very important issue. thank all of you for your powerful testimony, spelling out in great detail what the consequences are of allowing this so-called sequester to take place in eight days would be. it is important that the american people understand the consequences that you spoken about and as mr. andrews pointed it the alternatives that are in front of us. so they will be able to decide if the alternatives we proposed are better for the country than the massive job losses that we heard about and the terrible consequences for kids, workers in the aerospace and other industries and for the american public at large. that's why we have spelled out an alternative. when i say we, i'm referring to
3:09 pm
the democrats in the house also the democrats in the senate. we would like to see our republican colleagues spell out an alternative. since the new congress began, they have not put forward one proposal to oppose -- to prevent the across the board sequester. we have asked repeatedly for a vote on an alternative that would avoid it. let's spell out the details on that alternative so people can decide which is better. what we're proposing to avoid these cuts that we just heard about. we're proposing that we get the same amount of deficit reduction as the sequester. this year, from march 1 to the end of the calendar year that is $120 billion. instead of doing it in across the board way, instead of doing
3:10 pm
it all at once, so you're taking $120 billion out of the economy over a 10-month period, we would accomplish that over a longer period of time. again, the same net deficit reduction for our country but without the indiscriminate it in cuts, where you don't get priorities. but doing it in a way that you target cuts over time and closing tax loopholes. what do we propose? we get a chunk of the savings known as district payments. these are payments that go to bigging ary businesses where they are making a lot of money or not. replacing that with a smarter safety net. by doing that, you save $29 billion. this is something that has actually been identified by republicans and democrats alike
3:11 pm
as something that we could and should do. we also say that we don't need to keep in place the tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the wealthy. one thing we've heard is there is a lot of these tax breaks in the tax code that disproportionately benefit very wealthy people. guess what, they raul still there. we propose to do as a start to say to people who earn more than $2 million a year, you will at least pay a 30% effective tax. you're not going to be able to take advantage of those special interest breaks and preferences that you could in the past. it is known as the buffet rule, warren buffet pointed out that
3:12 pm
he paid a lower tax rate than the secretary that worked for him. we would do that. we would also take up a proposal that former president george bush suggested, which is to eliminate tax breaks for big oil companies, who are making plenty of money, which is their right. it is not their right for taxpayers to be giving them a big tax giveaway. we would end that tax break in the code for them. if you take that combination of targeted cuts and those revenues over the next window of the budget, you can achieve that same amount of deficit reduction without losing somewhere between 750,000 jobs or higher without the massive layoffs in the aerospace industry, without hurting our children's future, and without the terrible
3:13 pm
consequences to public health. let alone to disruption in the transportation industry as air traffic controlers are laid off. let alone the disruption that will be caused in the food supply when food safety inspectors are laid off and all the other consequences. that is an alternative. we think that is a far better alternative than the loss of hundreds of thousands of american jobs over a million potentially, and all the other disruptions that would take place. i should say, that the senate democrats have laid out a similar plan. their plan would also find savings in the district programs. their plan would call for targeted cuts in defense beginning in the year 2015 in much lower amounts than would be
3:14 pm
called for in the sequester. we would embrace their alternative as well. so you have the democratic house alternative, the democratic senate alternative but we have nod -- not heard a alternative from the republicans. you may not like what we proposed but at least let us have a vote. but the house of representatives, come back here and let us have a vote. if you want to vote no, that's your right. but the american people deserve a vote on this very important question. so let me just close with an economic question to you dr. fuller. there is some confusion out there in the public minds that
3:15 pm
this is a choice between these massive arbitrary deep cuts and trying to reduce our long term deficit. we laid out an alternative that can achieve the same reduction. can you talk about achieving the deficit reduction in the way we do, without as you said the across the board nature or the immediate deep cuts. how can you accomplish both and why it is a smarter way to do it without sacrificing the jobs that you talked about? >> yes, thank you congressman val hollen. it is interesting as i listen to the comments i did not hear one positive reason for pursuing sequestration. i did not hear one reason to do it. i have not heard one in any
3:16 pm
conversation in months. with that aside, reducing the deficit is important. i think there's a consensus about that. the people that are looking at this and running the numbers show that the economy will be stronger in 2021 by reducing federal spending but doing it in a smart way. such as you just suggested, that we don't have to lose a million, two million jobs. we can't afford it, in fact. it makes it bigger. the sequester as it the s laid out it makes the deficit bigger. those people don't pay taxes. the smart answer and i think you
3:17 pm
captured a lot of that. there are number of ways to capture it, but the framing that you have given it, you reduce spending in those areas that do not impact the economy to the maximum amount. you'ring selective, your strategic, you defer major cuts. you defer major cuts until the economy is healthy enough to actually be able to benefit from the actions you're taking and moving money from the public sector, ultimate to the private sector. increasing taxes in a way that doesn't reduce consumption, either it is going to come out of investment capital at the top
3:18 pm
end or possibly savings, more than like i will for discretionary spending for goods and services not produced in the united states and luxuries that are not fundamental to the economy. you can be start about this. you set a level of $2 million. that's pretty high. it could be lower and not have any negative consequence. so what is really important is how this is done. i think sequestration isn't the how, the how is reducing federal spending in an intelligent way that does not threaten our readiness, it doesn't challenge our needs in educational requirements. it does not disadvantage that country relative to other countries and reduce our
3:19 pm
competitive position. we're already struggling to compete. we need to invest wisely to improve our competitive position rather than hitting the n.i.h. with the same cutbacks that we might aloy to something less critical to our future. i can't make that decision to what is less critical but assuming that everything is equal is pretty stupid. that's the truth. >> thank you. >> thank you very much that important economic term. congress cummings is the senior democrat on the reform committee. he is better versed than anybody in this congress on the way you can intel jeptly save money.
3:20 pm
-- intelligently save money. >> thank you. i want to thank my colleagues for being here and thank our witnesses. dr. fuller, let me start with you. sometimes i try to put myself in the place of the regular citizen , who sittings here and watches this. they have to be scratching their heads. based upon what you just said, basically, you're saying we're digging ourselfs a deeper ditch. is that right? with this sequestration situation if it goes forward? >> it is a hole, it is worse than a dip. >> it is worse than a ditch. and i'm trying to figure out -- you said when you started your testimony at the beginning you said it is about jobs, nick, and economic growth.
3:21 pm
i guess you could add to that quality of life when i listen to the things said today. one of the things and i've been on the joint economic committee also. i hear this word over and over again in the committee from my colleagues on the other side, they talk about certainty. how important certainty is. then i look at what is going on here with regard to this possible sequestration. first of all, tell us how important certainty is to business, growth, and what impact would this have on that certainty. could you elaborate on that. >> excellent point. uncertainty is a four letter word in economics. investors will not risk capital if they don't have a sense that
3:22 pm
they have an opportunity to get their money back with reasonable return on that. consumers won't spend, unless they have an idea their likely to be better off next year than they were last year. they are going to hunker down, which is what they have been doing for the last five years. increased saving is good, but they are not going to buy another house. they are not going to buy a car or upgrade their clothing, buy furniture. they won't do -- they may not invest in higher education. we've seen applications for universities already beginning to pull back because people don't think investing in higher education is going to prepare them for something better than if they didn't. it seems to me, i've used this
3:23 pm
metaphor, i will take a minute, i think it really says something. it says if we're trying to to lose 30 pounds and there's a couple ways too this you can go on a starvation diet, just drink water for 30 days. you will be sicker than whatever, and you will r likely to gain it ail back. or you can do it in a healthy way, you could be a new person. go an a starvation diet, go cold turkey. destroy what it is that, in fact, is necessary to make this economy great. we're poised to come out of this ugly downturn that has struggled and struggled to gain traction. the forecast for 2014, 2015
3:24 pm
provide some optimism that we're going to get beyond this and we're going to be a lean operating economy, competitive in the world, unless we destroy the opportunity to get there. 2013 is the crit year. i can't -- critical year. i can't imagine but strategically put money into this system and have it poised for further expansion. >> let me go a step further. i was listening to some of my colleagues on one of the morning shows. they said well, we'll go and we'll have sequestration for a little while and everybody will wake up and then some way we'll bring it together and make it happen. and sometimes i get this impression that folks don't realize the full impact that --
3:25 pm
they think that maybe people are exaggerating. i'm just wondering -- let's say for example, we go into sequestration for a month, two months. how does that impact all of what you have been talking about? how do you see that panning out? let's say then we shift to a plan, like my colleague mr. van hollen talked about. because i think -- i've heard him say this and i'm curious and it is almost as if, there's a game being played. folks are not seeing the true significance of what is happening. >> how long can you hold your breath? we can't afford two months. there are and mrs. blake i can can talk to this better than i
3:26 pm
can. but there are companies out there hanging on. every week we hear about 370,000 layoffs. today, this morning, they went up by 10,000. they are not as bad as they used to be but companies are still struggling. you pull a contract, you threaten not to renew a contract, you can't get financing, you can't borrow money to grow your compensate or sustain it. or this -- company or sustain it. we have 4.5 million unemployed workers. they quit, they're not coming back. we can't afford to waste resources like this. this is like running around the daytona 500 with a yellow flag. how long can you do that before you run out of gas? we need the green flag. the federal government can get
3:27 pm
out of the way a bit, probably. it is not essential in everything it does. we can find out what isn't essential but cutting everything back 10% or % or whatever the number is, is not a way to do it in a selective, creative fashion. so i don't think the economy can recover in 2013 if you shut it down in effect for two months. because it's been shut down in a way ever since november. people have held back because of the threat of the fiscal cliff, they have been careful about investments, they are not hiring. we're running, at best, at half speed. the economy is, at best, at half speed. >> you know, mrs. allen, as you talked i felt a little bit emotional because i came up in a school like that. i realize that if it were not
3:28 pm
for those kinds of programs that you're talking about, i would not be sitting here today. my mother and father only had second grade education. we needed people like you to help us get to where we had to go. i tell people, a child is only in the first grade for one year. they learn to read by the end of the third grade. then they read to learn. if they don't learn to read, then in many instances they are stuck. am i right? for the rest of their life, not until they are 24 but until they are 95. when you see this -- i guess what gets me and i live in the inner city of baltimore and i see the kids that you talk about every day. i live with them. they just want to be somebody. they want to dream, they want to
3:29 pm
get there, they want to be the pilot. they want to be the teacher. and when you talk about that rock, i get it. so, you know, if you -- i can't think of any other word but collateral damage. what happens to a lot of people -- that's why i'm glad you came here to put a face on this. these are people. these are their lives. you know, this struggle -- they are just trying to make it. they are not trying to take anything away from the government, they are just expecting the government to do what the government is supposed to do. and they want to become taxpayers. i guess, i just want to thank you for putting a face on that. because i think we sometimes
3:30 pm
forget that. the president has a term i wish i invented it. he talks about an empathy deficit. i wonder about our empathy. i know hi time has run out. -- my time has run out. >> thank you for that. when i'm hearing about the sequester from an economic level or global level, i bring that down to the 36 faces in my classroom. thinking about how their lives would be different if we take away their headstart programs for their siblings so they start kindergarten not recognizing their names. when we talk away their math coaches and their social support and i shutter an what impact that can have on their future. bringing it back away from the human level and looking at it from the global perspective,
3:31 pm
economic recovery we begins in our classroom. this is our future work force. we need to think not only about the faces sitting in our classroom, but their impact 20 years down the road. not only do they deserve a great education but they deserve a wonderful future for them and their families. >> thank you. >> i know he brings unique perspective to the problems of the sequestration and we'll hear his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank our pam, you've given very compelling testimony to put a face on the what the cuts will mean for the country. i think it is important for us to remember why we're here. how did we get to this point?
3:32 pm
a lot of it has to do with the fact that, certainly in the house, the republican majority, essentially made a declaration after the fiscal cliff deal, that revenue was no longer going to be part of the conversation. it is over, it is done with. so everything we have to do now to address the deficit we're going to do exclusively through cuts. the president has been very clear, chris van hollen has been clear, our caucus is clear. from here on out if you're going to do anything to address the deficit you have to approach it in a balanced fashion. balanced means that revenue continues to be part of the conversation. this is what coppingman van hollen has out-- congressman van
3:33 pm
hollen has put forward and what also has been put forward on the senate side. you can't with a straight face say to a headstart youngster, or to a special needs student that we're not going to look at revenue anymore. when you have a situation of the oil and gas industry that continues to get bills of dollars in subsidies, taxpayer money. what you're doing there is you're making a choice. on the one side, you have an industry that in 2011 made $137 billion in profits. that's more than the total value of the sequestration over a year's period. $137 billion. on one side of the equation. what we like to see is let's eliminate these subsidies because they don't need them anymore.
3:34 pm
on the other side, you have a poshte cut of 70,000 children from the headstart program. i think our constituents are adament that we need to take more than a millisecond to figure out where to find the money. i think frankly a lot of those constituencies are prepared to step up but we can't get a vote in the house of representatives. we can't get a vote on this important question in a sensible way, in a common sense way. i think that's why the public, as congressman cummings said, is
3:35 pm
kind of scratching their head. as difficult as this many of these issues are and the complexities of them are, at another level this is not rocket science. we can find revenues and approach this in a balanced way. by the way, when you talk to these independent commissions and bipartisan in additions on the details we may agree or disagree with some of the recommendations, but they always start from the premises to solve this problem you have to have a balanced approach, you need revenue along with savings. i appreciate you being here because you present that stark choice between where we can find revenues in a reasonable way and then the human consequence of not making that kind of decision. i want to ask, you secretary and you mrs. allen, just speak to,
3:36 pm
sort of what it means to to have to catch up when these kinds of services get suspended in each of your different arenas. because the other part of this and dr. fuller touched on it a little bit, we end up increasing the cost of society over time. so talk a little bit about what does it mean in the public health context if services are suspended to catch up with the situation that has been created. you mrs. allen in the education context, give us a sense of that as well. >> thank you for that question. i've been in public health for 34 years. what has happened to the state's economy and the local government level in the last five years means that we already seen some of this in washington state. the public health nurses that used to be -- when we got hit
3:37 pm
with the whooping cough epidemic we had a county that had the highest number of cases and they went from having seven public health nurses to having two. families wanted to know who is going to investigate our case? we don't want our kids to get the disease from someone else. schools were calling us and the capacity wasn't there. as a result, bugs will spread. we're we hind on those kinds of things. when we look at the program that helps women and children, more than 16,000 moms, pregnant women and children are not going to get the special nutritional programs. which means you will get kids not as healthy that enter the classroom. results in pregnancy can be impaired. our family planningselveses are already reduced and we know that
3:38 pm
many of uninsituational preg nan sis are a result of that those things that you prevent from happening and i will use the tobacco program as an example. we cut down the number of kids that use tobacco in half. we are stalled across the country and in many states, we're seeing a number of kids using tobacco products, already hooked by the time they are in 12th grade and become life-long smokers. the cost is already showing up in higher costs from pull my theirry diseases and heart diseases. it takes a while to prevent that new future illness. our in impacts, we're living longer and we're hitting the
3:39 pm
medicare ages and medicare goes up because of the cost of diseases. prevention pays off but if you're not investing costs do go up and people are harmed. >> i'm going to piggyback on what you said about the concept of investment. i'm scratching my head when i think about how we're contemplating cutting money in education instead of investing in education. thinking about the indications and the human collateral that will be impacted by the decision or lack of a decision. what is going to happen to my students when they lose these services? when they lose the educational services that they have a right to? what is going to happen when they try to continually try to catch up and close the achievement gap because they don't have headstart or these other services that provide for
3:40 pm
the students and fair families. what would happen to my students when they reach the point of frustration because they are always trying to play catchup, where are they going to end up? the sequester to me is nonsensical. are we going to think about taking money from our 10-year-olds who are in tampa or from, you know, corporations or others getting lease large tax breaks. i urge you to focus on the faces of our students who will be impacted by the decision or lack of a decision. >> thank you. some of the apologyist for the sequester point to the fact that it allegedly exempts pay to our troops and other expenditures and other departments of
3:41 pm
defense. from your perspective who represents companies that provide the department of defense with tools for vital national security. what is your comment on the argument that that this does not impact the troops at all? how do you feel about that? >> the fact of the matter is, all volunteer army are counting on the fact that they will have the technology, they will have the training, that operation and maintenance for the systems they rely on is going to be there. that is exactly where the sequester hits and hits very hard. you have to remember that one of the things that we want to ensure in this country, is our troops never go into conflict withal level playing field. the technology that the aerospace supplies ensures that the united states does, at this point, have a critical advantage.
3:42 pm
but it won't be there and the training will not be there, the ongoing support. remember, a lot of this is supplied by small businesses. as you have said, main street. this is not something coming from large corporate entity. this comes from very skilled workers. but believe me, that technology is going to have to be there to the backs of our troops. >> i also want to ask you about another point i hear which is, well,, you can ease into it. if it only lasts a few days, a few weeks, or a few months, it is not that bad. from the subcontracters that supply the major firms. walk me through the process that one of those subcontracters is going through. let's say they decide to take on
3:43 pm
five or 10 new employees. how does the sequester affect that thought process? >> if you're a small company, and so many of ours are, you're back on your heels. you're in a defensive crouch because you don't know what the uncertainty of the sequester involves. what you can invest in, you don't even know whether or not you should go forward with the kind of training that is required, again, in specialized industries, where people really do have skills that have to be kept on the cutting-edge. -m of the smaller companies are family owned. they don't have the debt of capital, they don't have the access to credit, banks look at this situation and say wait a minute, this is too uncertain for us to be able to go out on the edge and make loans. this all goes to things like, for example, one of our members was going to invest in a new
3:44 pm
factory. this was going to add 200 jobs. they had to put it on hold. it probably isn't going happen on a permanent basis because that company says we're going to swing away from defense technology, but it will not involve the national security support that this company had provided. it also will not involve the general public. these are tough decisions that small companies had to make right now. >> i thank you. here in lies the distinct between the conservative estimate of 750,000 and as professor fuller tells us larger estimates. whether or not you assume that ripple effect in, the numbers of the conservative estimate would only count the furloughs and the layoffs and the pause in production. it would not cause what she just told us about the 200 jobs that
3:45 pm
don't get added because of the chaotic situation we've created for us. i want to thank the witnesses. before we conclude or physical you have any concluding comments i would welcome that. >> thank you. i want to thank all the witnesses here. as the clock ticks down over the next eight days it becomes increasingly urgent to get the word out about the choices we face and what the conscious squens are going to be. anybody who heard your testimony today would have to conclude that it was totally irresponsible and reckless to allow this sequester to take place in eight days. sequester is some washington word, but in plain english sequester equals massive job losses. it will have massive disruption
3:46 pm
in investments for our kids, for our national security, for our public health, and other things that help our economy grow and allow us to keep our competitive edge. i just want to thank all of you for being here. hopefully, between now and eight days from now enough people will come to their senses and look for an alternative. at the very least, allow us to have a vote on the alternative we have presented in the house and the alternative that has been presented in the senate, so the american people can judge for themselves whether their members of congress are making the right decision. >> thank you, chris. >> i will be brief. professor fuller, sorte security
3:47 pm
administration is in my -- social security administration is in my district and they told us that the backlog on disability claims could increase by 140,000 claims. he warned that applicants will have to wait a month longer for disability hearings. he warned that each day employees are furloughed it will prevent the agency from holding 3,000 hearings and completing 20,000 retirement claims. you know, we have one life to live. this is it. and as i listen to all the testimony, it hit me that, you know, one of the things that we in the congress ought to be
3:48 pm
doing is trying to help people live the best life they can. whatever that is. if it is the student that needs special help, help him. we can't do everything but we can help him so he can become a taxpayer, that little boy daniel with the rock i would love to see him 10 years from now. help your folks to have some certainty. when i was listening to you and i was thinking about a smaller version of something you were saying. there's a company that is going to close in my district. it's a small company and i was talking to a fellow who has a cleaners right near bi. he said i was going to add two employees but no the company is gone, i'm going to have to layoff, you know, layoff an
3:49 pm
employee or two. i was thinking how, professor fuller, it does turn a ditch into a hole and then into a crater. it just keeps going. it is like -- it is like it keeps whipping and whipping. it is like you have a drill and the dirt keeps flying and the next thing you have is this crater. it has a multipling affect, doesn't it? it also goes back to what i said, quality of life. again, we want to thank you for putting a face on this. i'm hoping that, you know, some folks will wake up and do the kind of things that my colleagues have talked about and mr. van hollen has worked so hard for so long to bring sense to this. if they don't take the senate --
3:50 pm
but at least give us a vote. >> i would like to thank our witnesses for their extraordinary preparation and the contribution they made on this urgent problem. we thank you for your time and your travels. leader pelosi and our members have heard voices from around the country that have given life and meaning and put faces on these very sobering numbers of job loss. whether it is a 375,000 or 2 million jobs. we've heard in our district from the contractors and subcontracters who are paralyzed from adding people or letting people go. mrs. allen, we've talked to the teachers and administrators, the parents, and the students who are paralyzed about what the sequester means to their lives and their struggle to get better. we've heard from our
3:51 pm
pediatricians and our nurses and our health administrators about their concern about meeting the rising health care concerns of the community. what you have done is pull together those voices into a co-her rent voice that, i think our speaker needs to listen to. the gavel of the house of the representatives for the speaker is not meant to be a weapon of obstruction. it is meant to be a tool of progress. wielding that gavel at n the right way at this moment, would let come to the house floor mr. van hollen's proposal and any others that could rationally and fairly solve this problem and let the majority work its will. we believe passionately that mr. van hollen's approach is the edge, strategic, and right. -- central intelligence agency
3:52 pm
-- what we do not understand is inaction. what we can't understand is paralysis. so we em employerer friends on the other side of the aisle. let the majority work its will. let the house do its job. let the country avoid this impending economic harm which is entirely self-inflicted, entirely unwise, and entirely unwise. we thank you for your time and your participation this afternoon. we stand adjourned.
3:53 pm
3:54 pm
>> agriculture secretary talks about the affects of sequestration budget cuts today at the forum, he said the automatic spending cuts could hurt food safety programs. >> i was thinking to myself, what is joe worried about. things seem to be going in the right direction. then i began to make the list of all the things we actually should be concerned about. what dawned on me was normally when you talk about agriculture and risk you talk about the weather, you talk about drought, things you might not have a lot of control over. but the uncertainty and the risk in agriculture today in my cases
3:55 pm
are man-made. let me give you a few examples. there is risk in the uncertainty with reference to budgets and the impending sequester to agriculture. you all know that march 1 will come and if it comes before congress has acted that the sequester will be triggered and what that means for usda means that virtually every line item will have to be reduced by a certain percentage and that could be in the neighborhood of 5%-6%. that means we have to implement the remaining reduction in the remaining fiscal year, which is about six months. unlike normal circumstances where the congress will district you to reduce funding but give you the flex able to choose
3:56 pm
where and how, this is the district prescription from congress to reduce every line item. if you're fortunate enough to be in an agency that has a lot of line you have a degree of flexibility. if you're if in food safety where you have food lines and most of the lines involve people and labor, you have very little recourse. that is a risk that we now face. because the only way we can absorb a cut of this magnitude is by impacting the people who work in the food safety area. we all know that when we do that, it doesn't just impact the workers, it impacts all the processing plants and facilities across the country. there's a way to resolve this. congress can give us flexibility
3:57 pm
and say we didn't mean every line item across the board in six months. or they can come up with a larger deficit reduction package that would avoid sequester. but if they fail to act, then we're required by law to invoke the sequester and we will do what we have to do. if, as you know, the usda is guilty of spending money they don't have there are civil and possibly criminal penalties associated with that. we take our jobs very serious and it is something we don't want to do but it may be something we have to do. this is a risk that is man-made. >> you can see all of the agriculture outlook in just about an hour here on c-span. tonight, here on c-span a look at k-12 education in the role of
3:58 pm
vouchers. at 9:00, we're joined by john cavanaugh and he will take your facebook and tweets. >> we told the approach we were going to take which was pretty straight forward pep we were there to -- forward. we were there to fix g.m. that was the mission, to make this company a viable company again. we were all focused. we're going to design, build the world's best vehicles. we're going to move quickly and we need your support and your input. so we changed a few things about the board meeting, we shortened them considerably, we stay wad -- stayed away from the details
3:59 pm
on how to build a car but on the bigger positions of moral and positioning, that sort of thing. the board was supportive of that and we kept them informed. lead leading general motors through bankruptcy and the bailout. that is part of book tv on c-span2. look for more book tv online and like us on facebook. india's foreign secretary is in washington for a meeting with john kerry and other >> the morning, i am jessica matthews, president of the carnegie endowment for international peace. it is my pleasure to welcome you to this conversation on the future of one of the most important relationships of the united states, the u.s.-india
4:00 pm
relationship. we are proud to have ambassador ranjan mathai. he joined the indian foreign service in 1974 and has since then, served in capitals all over the world from iran to tel aviv. we here at carnegie are fortunate -- including india pose a current envoy to the united states, ambassador brown. we have been fortunate to have scholars here for many years working on the subcontinent. and in this past year, we have
4:01 pm
drastically expanded our south asia program with the addition of frederick who is now directing the program. all of whom are working on doing serious scholarships on india and the rest of the subcontinent. we are working hard and eagerly working toward a carnegie center in new delhi in 3013. -- in 2013. relationship with the united states is deeply important for both countries. in president obama's words, the relationship between the united states and india, bound by our shared interest and values will be one of the bound partnerships of the twenty first century.
4:02 pm
mathai is the third foreign secretary who will be meeting with secretary kerry in his new position. as he develops his agenda, it is appropriate and a sign of the importance of the relationship. it is a defining moment from the war in afghanistan to the territorial disputes. a crucial role shaping the future. we are delighted to have the foreign secretary join us for the deepening strategic partnership between the united states and india. we will have time after his remarks for questions. after all, in india, you never
4:03 pm
have an uncomfortable questions. [applause] >> thank you very much, president matthews. a friend of india and the united states, distinguished ladies and gentlemen. since the president of the united states has already described the relationship as a defining one, i have decided to call the title of my presentation today somewhat more modestly "a twenty first century partnership for peace, prosperity, and progress." thank you for sharing parts of the team that is where i left it last year.
4:04 pm
and let me say it is remarkable how much as change in our relationship since i was here a quarter of a century ago. the team is there, i will be on track so that one of your diplomats could find a quarter century from now. another positive shift has taken place. i hope to suggest some ideas to take stock of where the relationship is and consider the way forward as the administration establishes itself in the united states so that we do keep on track. i trust i will not be accused of plagiarism as your esteemed institution has recently prepared with a subheading that
4:05 pm
encapsulates the task at hand. sustaining the transformation in u.s.-india relations. the headline is eye-catching. opportunities abound. it often leaves one wondering like in the newspaper, not all readers thought the dog bite was an adjective. to me, the subject was clear. i am part of a squad called upon to sustain the remarkable transformation that has brought the u.s. and india closer together than we have that in the past. -- have been in the past. with an audience like this, i do not need to dwell on history. but it is worth emphasizing the nature of the exchange has been unprecedented.
4:06 pm
the centerpiece being the civil nuclear arrangement, and has since emerged from it. the problem is that everything since that definitive moment tends to be compared with the audacity of what we dare to do together in putting this arrangement in place. this places somewhat unfair strain of expectation but i think it is also misplaced. much has happened since and it is equally significant in the game of nations in which we have evolved a new normal. let me cite a few instances. when beyond the regular exchanges beyond the heads of state and government, the strategic dialogue that is held annually with unprecedented levels of participation on both
4:07 pm
sides. it is normal that we have over 100 visits of the senior official. it is normal that the dialogue architecture activates from social sector measures and policy for counter-terrorism and homeland's security. at the review meeting that we will hold in the beginning of january, we have identified 20 dialogue mechanisms connecting major departments of our government. if you want to know more about it, the joint secretary dealing with the americas. our foreign offices consult each other on a wide range of global and regional challenges.
4:08 pm
several rounds of bilateral consultations, just two days ago we hosted the second round of the trilateral dialogue that is the u.s., india, and afghanistan. we cover non proliferation, disarmament, and exports. we're working together closely with membership for the multilateral export regimes. in short, it has become a habit and we have created a comfortable space to exchange opinions with candor and convergence. this is not just because we enjoy talking likely do. -- as india's
4:09 pm
horizons expand, we will talk about the u.s. which, from our perspective, has critical interest and a vital presence across the globe. this is a partnership that is genuinely strategic and there is no hint of taking lessons from each other. like the kristian turning to the jewish friend saying, which took the 10 commandments from you thousands of years ago and the jewish friend said yes, but you did not keep them. i do not suggest that the partnership is at a stage of maturity. for that we are in complete accord for all issues. we are looking for other avenues and gains of employment. i am aware converting the civil
4:10 pm
nuclear agreement is still a work in progress. some see the work, some see the progress. in a more gentle sense, we need recognition that it is not in the nature to be in complete agreement for any other on any issues. someone said that perhaps we are not on the same page. i love mixing metaphors. even if we can't be on the same script, both sides are willing to read from the same score even if we don't always play the notes the same way. i want to address this point because the mutuality of that if it is measured in more than dollars and cents. important as those are. it is also mentioned in a growing realization that it is a fundamental interest of the united states. it is not called the peaceful
4:11 pm
rise of india, and a strong and prosperous, innovative and globally engage united states is fundamentally in that interest. india has no evangelical condition. we share that the spread of democracy has open societies and a multi-based framework will shape a better world order. and the more mundane level of how we see growing interest converging with u.s. strategic outlook, let me outline a few areas. i will start with asia. i will address the misconception of conviction through multiple reiteration of some quarters. it was engaging or rebalancing towards asia. while i recognize that the policy is still evolving with
4:12 pm
diplomatic and maritime engagement, in the development of the pacific region, what is a recognized path for independence and historical experience? it synchronizes with the enhanced engagement of our extended neighborhoods. the most recent example of this was a very successful commemoratives summit, commemorating 10 years that we have worked together with all leaders coming to us. this policy of synchronization is based on our conviction that regional connectivity, economic integration, development, and authorities are the shortest derringers of stability across the region. this is the state in which we
4:13 pm
have engaged the summit process and discussions on the comprehensive economic partnership. it was with this in mind that we work to bring the u.s. into the indian ocean region association. that was november. our engagement with partners in southeast asia and beyond must contribute to the creation of a mutually acceptable regional security and economic architecture. it must be based on commonly accepted international rules and facilitate respect for international law, freedom of navigation, and communication. we're happy to work with all our partners to work involving a larger regional architecture for the region. by virtue of our geography, we have vital interests in the
4:14 pm
heartland and rhineland of asia have. we have an increasingly improved dialogue with the u.s.. we welcome the increased frequency on the issues to which i referred, which have a lot of mutual interest. afghanistan is one of the key areas where we hold close consultations. there is also a greater need for us to be frank with each other. we sincerely respect and honor the sacrifices made in securing and reconstructing afghanistan. india, too, has given life and spent $2 billion and we intend to remain in gauged with afghanistan and other international partners. we continue to support efforts
4:15 pm
to bring afghanistan to regional collectivity frameworks. we're hoping to lead the effort to transform the economy of afghanistan and continue evolution to a trade and investment-based economy. why is india involved? whatever happens in afghanistan will continue to affect our security directly. we have not forgotten the terrorist havens that target us, springing up as afghanistan who defended -- and descended into chaos. obviously, we don't want that to happen again. this is why the internationally accepted redline must be expected in what ever conciliation models are being considered. actions in support of the political transition will not undermined the value of government who.
4:16 pm
but most of all, we have yet to see any evidence of a dividing line separating al qaeda from other extras groups. they have either had an epiphany for made a strategic reassessment of their objectives. it makes little sense to draw lines of distinction that most of these groups and sponsors are not prepared to do. at least, not yet. i cannot over emphasize the point that terrorism is and will remain a security problem for both of our countries. our convergence and nature of the threat has never been greater. it is a challenge that provides an opportunity for enhanced cooperation in combating terror
4:17 pm
and protecting people. it is more competitive today as we move into significant uncertainty. behind this region is a general conviction about combating terror. even on the situation in mali. not surprisingly, counter- terrorism is a key dimension of our bilateral partnership. it is an area of our work that we must continue to strengthen, including exchanging information and working to bring terrorists to justice. we are aware of the legal procedure and their requirements. cyber security, to which the
4:18 pm
president of the united states made a reference, there are areas in which our countries can work together, particularly since the terrorist threat often falls into these areas of challenge. we already have working group dealing with cyber security issues and we feel there is much more we can achieve together in managing any mitigating these challenges. ladies and gentlemen, we're faced with a complex situation in the region. our relations are vital, self evidently so. crucial energy, financial, and commercial interests. we have old ties with iran that emerge as a critical source for many decades. we have a beneficial relationship.
4:19 pm
we also recognized and emphasize the need for iran to fulfil its national obligations and address questions about the nuclear program to restore confidence in the peaceful nature of that program. i believe the trip to kazakhstan will make some progress on this issue. iran is also an essential element, and it affords us the access to that we are prevented from having directly. they are also in that region where we have the vital economy and it is therefore, important that we continue to have bilateral conversations. we also have a shared interest in the democratic development and economic growth of south
4:20 pm
asia. i will simply say that we have real opportunities to build on these shared interests in that region. in a wider middle east, which your concerns hall on the instability in northern africa. the democratic aspirations in the region have brought about externally and forced a change. we believe the involvement leads to fewer instability. the search for political challenges has created many humanitarian crises and has pushed on towards a slippery slope as we now see the spread of weaponry. looking eastward, we're working to enhance the full range of our relationship. we take for our shared interest
4:21 pm
in these settings. we are encouraged by the changes in policies of that country. we continue our dialogue with that government and we have an number of interactions with the speaker. and also of our engagement in november. the historic visit of president obama a few months ago was a day or two after coming back from india. and the easing of sanctions on my country should help take for the process every engagement with the world and restore the historic role in the country. even on global issues, we are developing a habit. they agreed that we will work together in the trilateral motive.
4:22 pm
we have now put in place a cost for an ip enabled open government platform, a joint partnership with the government. we will expand this soon in partnership. we're working to offer agricultural programs and specialists from india and other places. one of the agency's favor working with usaid to offer courses to afghan women so they can be empowered to earn a livelihood and their country. what does all this mean the bilateral relationship? it binds growing convergence is. defense is a key component of
4:23 pm
the bilateral cooperation. the idea was to borrow the ambassador's phrase, and there is $9 billion in bilateral defense. i mentioned this figure when i spoke last year also. it will not be stuck like -- this was originally an ethnic joke, but now we just say indian a and indian b. how many can you eat on an empty stomach? he says 25, so he goes in each of 25. he said, i told you i could do it. >> as soon as you finished the first one, you have failed the
4:24 pm
test. how many can you eat on an nt stomach? he says, if you had said 25, i would have told you are really nice joke. decide, our armed forces are remaining together through bilateral military exercises. they conduct the maximum number of military exercises with any foreign partner of the united states. we are in the midst of an effort to find ways in which he resolved that process validity is in our system. we need to find ways to make procedures compatible with the partnership is to develop. we also hope to find ways were we can transform the defense partnership by strengthening the technological dimensions of the
4:25 pm
partnership so it has a mutually beneficial impact on the development of the defense industry. economic cooperation continues to increase and both services are up over $100 billion annually. we are hoping will -- hopeful that in the near future, a meeting is overdue. there is a reference to space as another area where we can cooperate. we have developed very significant capabilities which are entirely compatible with the united states for a political partnership. it is essential that we in gage, and a more focused manner, because of the changed policy environment in india. the government has announced a range of reform measures to make
4:26 pm
india a more attractive destination. the effort has been to address the demand, and most of all, second and third generation reforms that have been pushed through with significant political will and we hope will evoke a response from our industry and partners. aviation and the financial sector. some measures have already been rolled out and companies have started opening stores. brooks brothers, slightly above my pay grade. sweden has also obtained clearance to set out its own. the government has put forward in raising the ceiling on foreign investment and financial services as well. this last item awaits parliamentary approval.
4:27 pm
meanwhile, we hear from partners that there are still elements on which clarity is needed. ultimately, these are business decisions. these waters can only be tested by taking the plunge in what has consistently proven to be a large and profitable market. i do recall seeing a study in which it was hard to find a serious multinational country that have lost money in india. it is also most sustainable when it is recognized. it should be recognized that what we do will naturally create benefit. we also have both sides on the number of matters.
4:28 pm
just as the u.s. has also identified industry as the key driver of employment, we need to do so. the simple fact is we cannot harnessed democratic dividend without developing industry. that sector alone can help us absolves millions of young people. when i fight, we have concerns, even a conversation about the total was asian. this is necessary as we begin to address concerns of the law- abiding and taxpaying people that served at the same time as the strongest and most committed for our relationship in both countries. this is difficult to explain when we have included such agreements with other economies, including recently with canada. aboutwe conclude negotiations a
4:29 pm
trans-pacific partnership. your plan announced for discussing a comprehensive partnership, which are moving forward with a comprehensive economic cooperation agreements. and we are also in dialogue with the eu. not necessarily with a decent of urgency. it does not suggest a great deal of pace. it may surprise you that we want this as much as you do. ladies and gentlemen, important as they are, services can be seen in perspective " for be made of the defining narrative. while we must sort out these challenges, it is not in our interest to define racial profiling.
4:30 pm
we will discuss market access issues at the trade policy forum. we also need to find a positive narrative that will bind our countries together. one is in the energy sector. without access to energy inputs, we will not be able to sustain economic development. therefore, an enduring partnership should not only cover technological and regulatory aspects, but established commercial partnerships. as the u.s. becomes a net exporter of energy, we hope we can develop mutually beneficial partnerships. renewable energy, biofuels and emission technologies. in each of these cases, there can be immediate benefits for both sides. you're interested in exporting natural gas and exporting to non
4:31 pm
fta countries would help stabilize internationally traded -- it will health has added transportation and also the refining shipment facilities here. partnerships between us diversify the sources of supply. biofuels and energy-efficient these are areas that are already identified. grid management, heating and technology with the capacity to bring renewable energy would be mutually beneficial areas of the exchange. large projects are being reexamined by cabinet committee. among the first that the
4:32 pm
committee has taken up, relating energy to oil and gas, the focus is being made on oil and gas exploration blocks. u.s. companies have recognized strengths and we hope that as we move ahead, we can draw new players. i believe the exciting new finds of the coast of east africa will lead to greater interest in other areas of the indian ocean. an extraordinary transformation could also bring larger quantities to a global market facing supply constraints. i think that there is much we can talk about. education is also a strategic area for partnership. bringing a higher learning infrastructure, you will help support the modernization of supply lines.
4:33 pm
millions of young indians will be coming on to the drop -- into the job market. you enable them to be productively and gainfully employed. at one level, we want to create mutually beneficial partners for engineering institute's, management institute's, and social science colleges. this also provides a basis on which we develop science, technology, and innovation. and what is called the obama knowledge initiative. we also have immediately employable skills. earlier this month, we made a good beginning with the events focusing on explaining how
4:34 pm
community colleges work. as many colleges were represented. ladies and gentlemen, let me endeavor to draw my presentation to a conclusion and recommendation on the way forward. there is a more effective cooperation on terrorism and there is strong support for a partnership. and there is an impact on the region. we recognize and welcome your enduring commitment. we hope that our concerns will also factor in your calculations. the relationship between us, and as you recalibrate your presence, we hope that the transformation of our
4:35 pm
relationship can go forward based on what each side can bring to the table. we need to do more to make defense cooperation part of a new normal. weakened by a simple process solutions to enable your company is to make valuable money to meet our defense requirements. we also have the joint production of defense. we can move to make this happen rather than inviting each other to go first. it must be more about finding fault, and the significant investment and the jobs that they create, we will find ways to work closely together. there will be value to engage in our efforts with the ecosystem in india, a manner that is compatible. we believe the manufacturing sector could witnessed a very
4:36 pm
significant revival led by your chemical industries. we will return to a higher gdp or ah in a year's time little over that period of the economy will be pursued and we expect the emphasis on manufacturing will start showing tangible results. the hope for beneficial cooperation will only increase with r&d, a technology agreement, manufacturing, or traded. since we cannot allow the differences we have to dominate the discourse, we have created a forum to discuss the issue openly. six strategic openings for the u.s. to invest in the future of india. as many of our friends remind us, it should be strategic in
4:37 pm
and of itself for the u.s.. we have begun to work together well and a number of multilateral efforts. there is also room for us to do more together in the maintenance of a strong and stable global architecture. it is important that the signaling remains positive. we have been told the u.s. has placed a strategic bet on india. it seems hardly intelligent to except advice from those of betting you will lose. listening to me for half an hour without a simple slogan or a
4:38 pm
catchy phrase of much progress can be made. the evolution of our relationship cannot be conducted from one transformative moment to another. instead, recognize the process will be consistent attention, regular cooperation, and continue high-level engagement. it is essential we continue to invest at the highest level and this is my final point. this partnership is really in our national interest. i read the outstanding case made yesterday at the university of virginia on a wire resources spent on foreign policy are difficult and your great country. he referred to india, that made jobs here is secure. the case he made could have been
4:39 pm
made by my own minister. but there are mutual investments in these partnerships and it is all about making people safer and more prosperous. it is also about addressing the complexities of the world in which people face many of the same global challenges. it is working to address this strategic reality that the partnership will be defined for decades. we look forward to engage in this vital relationship with the government and the support of a partnership that is all of you here today. thank you. [applause] >> we have microphones, so please introduce yourself. we have 15 minutes, so let's begin right here.
4:40 pm
>> i enjoyed your presentation and found it highly informational. you touched on an important concern, the cyber security and defense operations. china and america have had issues recently. , what do youse think about these important topics? >> would you like to take a couple? right to the front here. just get the microphone behind you. >> this is defense oriented, also. we represent a number of financial services companies that have gone into india, but
4:41 pm
the defense companies have a problem. they have to hire someone in office before they can even do anything. if you could ease that barrier, i think the u.s. defense companies will explore the market, at least, more frequently. >> and we will take one more right here. >> thank you for that excellent and wide-ranging presentation. i come from brussels that the one part of your speech that was related to economic and trade relations -- i would say the tone of your discussion would be more positive than it was an hour here in washington. india is engaged in deep
4:42 pm
discussions in the european union and the next few months will be quite critical given the political calendars. and given the fact that you will be trying over the next few years to create free trade agreements, to what extent does that leave india more into a discussion with the u.s. and eu on these matters? >> sever security is definitely an area where there is a lot that the u.s. and india can do together. we have begun to see the cyber security dialogues, and i have read this is an area where we need to engage. as it happens, a very large number of players on both sides are involved. and the thing we need to do is identify structure to begin the dialogue. i think that this is one area
4:43 pm
that we would look forward to. i did try in my presentation to say that there was much we could do. the two or three areas that are already functioning, regular exchanges and consultations, we have defense procurements. we have to step up to the joint production. i think that is the direction that we need to go. i am puzzled by the question that came from other gentlemen that said you need to hire someone before you go when. it will be useful to have an office and someone to work for you. i need to look at this. i am not very familiar with the fences.
4:44 pm
is this any defense company? >> [inaudible] >> this is something on which i will need to come back with a little more information. india and the eu, absolutely. i would be remiss if i conveyed the impression that with our economic relationship that i was trying to sound as if we had no complaints. i was saying that with all trading partners, you inevitably get involved with the agreement over one particular aspect of trade over another. since that narrative is good, we need to focus on that and put these into something like the trade policy forum and deal with them separately. but we have made substantial progress. i believe there'll be one that
4:45 pm
where i hope we can finally get a deal. we have a great deal of progress and matters related industry and agriculture. that gap remains to be breached. it is certainly giving us a lot of attention. negotiating *, you have the same set of people that are debating these issues and all of their partners. we need to conclude this and we will be looking for a win-win proposition. >> we have a group right here. >> i am from brookings next door. i hate to put you on the spot here, but this just came out and has to do with what i was going asked earlier. it has been reported that there have been bomb blasts, of which there have been 11 reported dead
4:46 pm
and now injured are rising. what a coherent strategy for countering terrorism has been developed within the government to address the growing issue of home brew terrorism? >> right next to you. >> what is your opinion on the latest development? >> and right behind there. >> i am a journalist for the afp news agency. it is misguided to draw the distinction between al qaeda and other groups. would that be useful to try to attend back? -- attempt that? >> the bomb blasts underline
4:47 pm
what i think i emphasized, that it remains one of the issues on which the united states and india have worked together very closely. we have had a number of attacks that have been traced to inspiration of leadership outside the country. i think you will wait until reports are completed. counter-terrorism is attracting the attention of our government. we have developed i number of mechanisms both in terms of intelligence and the coordination for the central government and the state because policing is a state subjects. and the forensic of taking this,
4:48 pm
like every other country, we are on the front lines of terrorism. and we need to reinforce our efforts. we will certainly be open to working closely with u.s. partners. in terms of the kind of cooperation that we are talking about, not only about dealing with terrorism anwhen it occurs, but to see if it can be prevented. these are areas we will certainly be spending a lot of attention. mechanisms both in terms of i will go straight to the next question. this distinction is not clear yet. when we have seen no evidence to suggest that there is a difference between those that
4:49 pm
call themselves al qedaada, are sponsoring them. we use caution until that kind of distinction is something that can be made. right now, we don't see that. if it were to emerge, it would be something we could talk about. as you know, the president is on the seventh, a, maybe ninth day. we have simply -- and there is no legal definition of what he is doing. there is a legal system pursuing him on which they really have nothing to say.
4:50 pm
we have made the political point -- the election to be free and fair, they are free to participate. it is the basic position we have taken. we are discussing and we hope we can find some kind of amicable solution documents and in your speech, you have a very efficient dialogue. can you tell us what kind of an agenda? i guess it is not china.
4:51 pm
>> this is part of the usual, in eastern asia. as i said, we have a trilateral dialogue. none of this is aimed at any other country. it is simply views and opinions. one particular area, they have an merged with huge needs, road building, things like that. if there is an interest, we would be happy to cooperate. it started with discussions.
4:52 pm
>> i used to be based in your country for four years as a correspondent. i am surprised, i heard you mention pakistan at least harbour terrorism in your country as well where it is evident for american forces. where you see opportunity for .ooperation >> i think there are many save havens for terrorism. it is not my intention to get into a specific name game. we have a regular discussion with afghanistan.
4:53 pm
they are concerned about the presence of save havens. we also have a regular dialogue and with the united states. most of it, we are at bilateral issues together. for our own dialogue, as you know, we have been a kind of dialogue on different teams. it has become one of those issues. not because we are unwilling to speak. certainly, the question of how afghanistan evolves in the future, to a large extent, the maintenance of the red lines of the international community. if you read the conclusions last
4:54 pm
year, it is very clear that there has to be an end to the terrorist attacks in afghanistan. >> the foreign secretary, you can't imagine that at 11:00. please join me in thanking him for a wonderful presentation. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> national governors' association holds their meeting in washington. and the oklahoma governor. that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern followed by a discussion on employing people with disabilities and a look at the role of states in cyber security. more from the governors association on sunday, more
4:55 pm
about the initiative on employing disabled people. and a discussion on education with connecticut gov. ann malloy. the meeting closes with a conversation with dr. law's on healthy eating. >> from the very start, we told the court that the approach we were going to take, pretty straightforward, we were sent there to fix gm. that was the mission, to make this thing a viable company again. we were all focused and brought the message that we're going to design, build, and so the world's best vehicle. we need your support and we need your input. we changed a few things about the board meeting.
4:56 pm
we shorten them considerably. we stayed away from the details and didn't get into the weeds about how you build a car. morale, positioning, the board was very supportive of that. we kept them informed, and we just took off. >> leading general motors through bankruptcy. an american turnaround, sunday night at 9:00 as part of a tv this weekend. and look for more online. >> of the agriculture department held of the annual agricultural outlook forum. the secretary discussed the threat from climate change and the budget cuts set to take effect next month. they also spoke touching on global food security. first we'll hear from the chief economist.
4:57 pm
>> good morning, everyone. good morning. good morning, everyone. i hear some response. asking everyone to settle and for a great morning. i am deputy secretary kathleen and i want to welcome you to the eighty ninth agricultural outlook for rum. everytime we have a conference like this, the first person gets up and gets the job of asking you to please quiet yourself loans. thank you very much. on behalf of the the secretary, the
4:58 pm
chief economist, i really want to welcome you here to arlington virginia. especially international guests and all of those watching through the web cast. we have several representatives here from the embassy, and we welcome you. we are honored to have you with us. organizing this conference, 25 different sessions, is quite a lot of work. i want to begin by thanking the organizers of the conference for all they have done. i have worked with a top-flight team and i particularly want to thank the chief economist and the world of board chairman for all of the great work they have done. they have to very full days. i know we will learn a lot. along with traditional the chief economist, i really want commodities, this year, the program emphasizes the ways agriculture must manage risk from finances to natural resources and transportation.
4:59 pm
one of the things i am really excited about is more time spent on for and vegetables which i think are increasing importance in american agriculture and diets, we see them more center stage and i think that is a terrific thing. i also am really excited to be here because all we have the center here as the speaker this morning. i don't know how many of you have survived congressional hearings like i do. sitting there, i have my fingernails in my thumb to keep myself away. i have the glorious assignment when i worked on the senate agricultural committee, being the person that chaired the subcommittee on research. i have never been to such exciting committee hearings.


disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on